“For the same reason why a bereaving person to their departed beloved may sometimes wonder on the state of them, even after they’ve been buried, is the reason why the scientist will aim to unearth things in which the scientist is curious towards.
It is the way with denial. Towards existence, no longer in existence, is a scientist’s desire to unearth the forgotten things, the things never completely fathomed; though, once the action takes place in unearthing oldness, it becomes a matter of turning completion, being the essence of death, into something incomplete.
The way with death is absolution. The way with life is discontent. And, the way with love is unsteady contentment. Denial comes in the way when a scientist will become curious over non-existence, something in which is not fully understood, never understood by the past, by past cultures, by past peoples. Then, under what banner of ignorance or negligence, is all the wisdom within religion, somehow ignored from this?
For was it not God to be the first thing denied, by science? Science questions the ‘why’ towards each thing. ‘Why did this happen?’ is what the scientist questions. The scientist figures it out, and through the ‘power to reason’, it is a matter of ‘why’, as well. Thus, you have again, our example of someone in disbelief towards the dead, their dead beloved, and still wondering how they appear, where they have gone, and why they did leave. Would a scientist ever attempt to exhume the grave of God?”
“I had loved a woman,” says this man named Joshua, his feet carrying his body towards a certain uncertainty. He had indeed loved, bared himself wonderfully to a child of his own worship. He had been God upon a time, and gave birth to his pride; the flesh of his own flesh, that is, and made himself smile. Has one ever envisioned God to ever smile?
God is not a thing of power, were ever power to be attained as is, because power has no creation of itself without a viewing of a creation’s suffering; and as the Atheist would adore their emotion of denial, for whatever compiled list of emotions creates denial, sees God as the one to ignore suffering. A compelling sight of ignorance is drawn into the Atheist’s own mind, to say that God ignores suffering. A child, much alike to Joshua’s once-beloved he beheld for himself, is never a child for long. Much alike how Joshua abandoned his beloved, God abandons Mankind for their independence. The pitiful anger an Atheist throws to the sky finds itself nowhere fast, only swimming in the deepest darkness of a limitless universe; and that anger is only a depiction of a proof, that to be angered at God for his supposed refusal to cleanse suffering, proves the angered one to be eternally the child. Therefore, in comprehension of this, God becomes only ever-so powerful, in sight of suffering, in hopes of its thwarting of God’s own throne, in expectation of perhaps a certain someone to die and then ascend.
Joshua had abandoned a woman to her independence, and many movements have encouraged this, for a woman to abandon love, and abandon unity with a man; though, has God ever held the hands of a wife?
What has God built to destroy besides everything he sees with eyes that so many will believe to disbelieve does not exist, as such eyes are seemingly never opened? The sun, and what of the sun, besides warmth, and the warmth we find to open our own eyes after a night’s period of sleep?
Oh, love; such an emotion that awakens; as such occurs for a woman when she is kissed. Beautiful beauty. Beautiful recognition. Flesh rises when it is kissed, and denial only ever surfaces when depression strikes a man down to kiss the soil.
A man is in love with death, not in the act of stooping to kiss, though in the act of loss; to be a pauper is when a man would weep. And Joshua has lost, though of his own accord. A society of Democracy is now London’s breath upon the cold skin of this melancholy town. It is a society of eternal choice, of the uncertainty that comes from never an answer to show itself.
Beauty rapidly falls apart when it is not sustained by the support of love.
A man is in love with a woman when he desires to root her. In place, her desire for exploration is cast aside, and every dance she yearns for becomes wrapped in silence; a dance in silence, that is, and her place becomes the roots for a man’s belonging for her. A man is not in love with a woman when he desires to see her set free. In place of that rooting, she is married with Satan, or deception, and she makes her mark never in sight of God, but of countless opportunity.
For a woman is more-so the opportunist than ever a man was; and a modern realm for a world, especially for Joshua’s hometown of London that has embraced Democracy, has only sought to utilize the essence of the opportunist, so that work is rapid.
A thirst, a burning, a quenching; for the fires of love cannot be quenched, though the first of lust burn out on their own. What has a woman, for any world, in any society, desire for herself? Is it eternity in the arms of a truthful someone, or is it the many placed beams of support, that raises tall a fragile skyscraper, to indicate revolution and endless change?
How long will Joshua continue to travel?
To walk, upon the toes that were once there to see their cleansing in the running waters of a bathtub. And now, to merely stumble over the airy nature of his own depression; and such depression that is a past thrown forward.
He raises his head, during this moment, to espy the walkway before him. A marvelous sight of complete loneliness seems to be now his future.
For what has a man to do with freedom? It is a nothingness to him.
A man becomes the slave, while a woman becomes the asset, for a world that speaks of politicians as saviors.
Politicians have been the leaders of corruption, and nothing more. Love is the only weapon to cleanse; and from this factual sliver of evidence to what has been toyed with, strangled and buried, where are the books with the opening pages to remind all of it?
With what Joshua, as well, espies before him, is a river. In the metaphorical sense, it is another way to depict that road of loneliness, previously mentioned. Though, it is also a way to describe a place of uncertainty.
Of a man and his uncertainty: it is the sight of a globe rotating on the spine of disorder.
Love a man, and he will find himself to make a decision; and to take that decision will reflect upon him as himself never dwelling in eternity to make a decision; and this means, that should a man ever take a moment to decide, he will be forever in love. Though, should he ever take an eternity to decide, then he will be forever in Hell.
Offer freedom through love, to the man, and nothing more. Offer freedom to a woman, and she roams, and nothing more; or a woman will find herself crawling in filth, and still believe herself to hold power.
“I am death,” says a woman, whose power enables her to be that opportunist, repeatedly mentioned, now. “I am love,” says a woman, whose power enables her to cleanse the blood from the responsible man.
Joshua quits his walking, finally.
He has found something that strikes his interest to heart.
“How does a world embrace so easily the love towards the self, disguise it as well, as love, while denying what it actually is, as hatred? Hatred confines, cages the person inside themselves, while love will flood a planet. How does a world not know God, other than attempting to seek greater truth than him? It is inevitable that a vulnerable human would do this. Truth is flesh, while love is the shield for the flesh. Death is beneath the flesh, as a skeleton. When science discovers, it discovers bones. To dig for truth, turns truth upside down, and a scientist finds no meaning in the limitlessness of love, nor of the universe that relates to love; for he finds more truth in everything limited of the human. That is, he finds more use in something not unlimited, but may be studied as the fleshy form that may be touched; or perhaps even wielded as another shield for the selfish human to guard only themselves, and create victims in others. Is this not familiar?”
“In what a woman denies, it is the aspect of devotion. She still yearns for it. In what a man denies, it is his strength, the willpower he must possess to return to her. When we relate a ‘Second Coming’ of Christ to these differences, we behold denial and yearning. A woman’s lover, was Christ, in a sense, who took her virginity. As a savior, a man must return, be the man to create that ‘Second Coming’ in the sexual context of what the two words symbolize, after returning to her. Christ, in all his saving grace, will not return, until yearning overwhelms denial. In the same sense, love will not return to a world, until the yearning for love overwhelms the denial of love’s importance.
Does a man leave, or has the instinct to leave, should the lock of marriage not be upon both Man and Woman? It should be assumed so, for the ‘guessing’ behind a man, will cause him to be the Christ who drops the cross, never carries the ‘burden of Original Sin’, and will not return until the woman’s yearning overwhelms her denial; and, as well, the man’s ‘faith in his strength’, akin to Christ’s ‘faith in humanity’, overwhelms his ‘doubt for his strength’ or his ‘denial for his strength’. For how could Christ carry the cross, the burden, were it not for his Mother? And, at the same time, how could a man ever carry his life forward, if it were not for the silvery glass of a woman’s eyes, that he’d see both her soul and his own reflection?”
“God is always divided between the denial and the yearning. This places God in either realm, named as either the ‘lost’ or the ‘found’. Christ had been met with betrayal, and soon questioned His own faith for his father. A society of people, in the same direction, question their faith in others. A woman, when taken of her virginity, will yearn for the ‘second coming’ from the man who then abandons her. God and Christ. A man and a woman. A father and a sufferer. A savior upon a savior. This is the way of love. Christ awaited His return to Heaven. From the ascent, to the descent. The ‘second coming’ has placed Mary in the spot to yearn for such a return of a love; a love that had taken her virginity; a love that had made her vulnerable. And between such a ‘yearning’ to then notice those who ‘deny God’, it is seen from them, that they, or a woman, denies that such a love ever existed. ‘Mankind’ is the representation of both Man and Woman. As sufferers, we cling to knees. Man clings to Woman’s knees. Woman clings to God’s knees. Savior and safety. Man and Woman. Mankind.”
“Truth is the covering upon death. A skeleton is the exposure beneath flesh, and in the search for truth, in the search for identity, there will be a skeleton soon to be shown. There will be death. There will be a skeleton, revealed. Why is this? It is because, in the turning away from love, there is soon the flesh to be seen; and then, in the search for truth, beyond God’s touch of love, there is the belief that suffering will become the new form of equality. The victims of a society will be there for the creation of equality. It is because when God made equality through love, truth was met with modesty. Then, when God was discarded and made ‘obsolete’, truth was searched after, until made distorted and unrecognized. Beauty was seen as business, because business makes use of chaos. Soon, such ‘victims’ of society will be there, and expose their flesh enough to see beneath. They and their alterations, through cash and plastic, through money and oil that are the treasures of wealth from the earth, a skeleton will be revealed.”
“Would a scientist be ever able to comprehend a reality so grand as love, when love cannot ever be made useful, as the machine continually tinkered and toyed? Reproduction works in the same fashion as the factory. And our problem of overpopulation has no doubt resulted partly from a rise in industry. More workers, would mean for the body to become the slave. Has slavery been outlawed? It cannot be ‘outlawed’, for ‘slavery’ has its meaning in ‘movement’ and ‘dissatisfaction’. Would a scientist ever comprehend the invisible, in such things as love, or even death? They only comprehend the work needed, the slaves needed, and each cog to make a machine operate, as a society runs in the same fashion. God is the invisible, and cannot be made a ‘reality’ until experienced. In love, or when dead, these are the experiences of God. Is love ever useful? It is not. Is death ever useful? Should a corpse be raised so that it continues to move, in the movement of slavery, or would its soul and today’s beloved ‘personalities’ ever return to these corpses? It cannot be assumed as so, because it’d never occur.”
“It should be evident that in the embrace of the common ‘opinion’ that such answers to a problem, would never be a true answer. That the question would be more prominent than the answer. That the questions, for how much a human breeds, and for how curious a child behaves, would be more vast in number than the answers. Can a human return to a one? Can a human return to the universal? Can a human ever once again, comprehend the wisdom in seeing, in perception, and in vision; and in such sights, know that the solutions are infinite and never will solve the limitations of life?”
Q: How is it that a scientist cannot look anywhere but down?
A: It is because history has a habit of burying secrets. A scientist, in the denial of God, refers to life as opposite from death, inevitably so; for it actually is that love is opposite from death. It is not reason, but love that dictates the functions of the higher, or primate, brain. Genesis has described God as the Creator to Life, and after Creationism took place, God had rested. Through reason, there is industry. Through love, there is rest. This is the very reason for why the Christian God is considered the “God of Love” in being the entity who differs Himself from the opposite of honesty. And the opposite from honesty is deliberate analysis.
Q: How is it that such truth, as you’ve depicted is from God, is out of reach of a scientist?
A: Such secrets that “human history” has buried, is the reason for why all branches of science have no choice but to look down. The fixing of mistakes, upon the stain of human touch. Human action has created human fault, and human fault is repaired by those who offer answers to problems. They are the scientists of our day. For was it not God who a needful one looked up to? How would a scientist ever become obedient to God, when they, themselves, are the ones who provide answers? Had God looked up?
Q: And in what fashion can such truth ever be discovered?
A: Intuition and honesty and the “living of God” is all how a human can ever be one with God. When reason is embraced, then skyscrapers raise. Truth to “media outlets” that represents itself as anything of the unknown, which is a truth that relates itself to a “higher standard” will appear “shocking”. For it is because, like a woman’s nude body, truth is shocking. Truth is flesh, easily sculpted, and through dissatisfaction, and the continuous altering of truth, beauty is soon altered. Beauty is flesh, and the recognition of the face, and such details of features represent poetry. When skyscrapers rise, media is shocked by “higher truth” that is at God’s level, because even for how tall a skyscraper is built, “shocking” truth is that truth that remains out of reach.
Q: You say that to seek the “evidence of God”, one must look no further than upon themselves and their yearnings?
A: What have we of the “Second Coming”? It can only mean that such an event is similar to any other event in one’s life, that involves the “return of love”. As well, the “loss of virginity” to a woman reveals a certain void in her, one that has not yet been filled by the “returned lover” who had taken it. Should it be that such a man who took, or rather, stole a woman’s virginity had only done so, for the sake of taking it, then the “Second Coming” then becomes the yearning. To “look upon themselves” as you quoted of me, is the evidence of yearning. One doesn’t at all seek the “evidence of God” unless through humanity. A machine is impossible in such a task. “God” is always only either denied or longed for, in the return upon the weak, could they be a woman, who desire that void to be filled.
Q: Then, the “evidence of God” has only to do with humanity. How does a scientist comprehend such an ideal?
A: The scientist can only comprehend what changes consistently. Therefore, the scientist, as a scientist, can only comprehend science. The scientist, as a human, will comprehend love, through humanity. For a human inevitably believes in God when in love, and when in love, a human should find that their love is unchanging, much like God. Love should not change, or otherwise when it does, it was only because discontent met love on a path. Everything unchanging dies, and becomes unrecognizable, when it changes. We describe the “face of God” as linked to those we love. And, in the same fashion, those we love should always be recognized.
Q: How is science not ever able to discover the “evidence of God”?
A: It is because science represents the “changing” while God represents the “unchanging”. God is called “unfathomable” or “omniscient” or “perfect” and all such words, because God is unlike the ordinary human, who continually seeks change in their own imperfect lives. As well, God is the God of both love and death, not just love. Such things, both love and death, are invisible to life, especially death. Though, the one thing that puts a halt to life, is death. And the one thing that puts a halt to discontent, is love.
