“As for evidence, the Atheist will not believe in what should require material proof, since it could not be presented. And yet, who protects or loves the material? Material substance is created for its consumption, and never to the motive to protect what should not disappear. Believing in love, or a truth as this, is same to never avoid it. Believing in love is same to never avoid another, to not steer from the oneness of truth. Such truth, being denied, becomes the favor for addiction. Such truth, being denied, becomes the favor for deception. Truth cannot be a multiple, because in a person’s avoidance to it, their attraction becomes then to what is a mere convenience. Such truth will remain as a belief, as a faith, because its opposite is to be deceived.”– Modern Romanticism
“Always wander with your eyes facing forward, as your mind looks back.”– Modern Romanticism
Love and trust. Dualities of sorts, though only ever the latter works for the former. It can be said of trust that it is something in which we are aware to. We cannot be trusting of all things, for that would make it just as blind as love. There are those who blindly trust, though this is what causes ruin among companionship. If we blindly trust another mortal human, then betrayal is certain. Trust is only for the convenience of a person, as it is not a necessity. As in, we do not trust what we need, such as food, water, or shelter. Such things we need, so there is no necessity for it to be aligned with trust. Though, among other people being given trust in the intent of revealing our fragility about them, is always the granting of wisdom upon realizing what is good or not.
If we better ourselves in where we have been faulted, then it is to say that when we make mistakes in trust, we later become constructed. We are criticized for having done wrong. The only legitimate sort of person able to criticize someone for fault is one who has foreseen the negative consequences arriving. As in, they have been within the same experience of those they are perhaps offering a warning. When criticism arrives, it is legitimate in their allowance to the blindly trusting individual to find out for themselves what mistakes could be made.
To trust, or to love, there is no mistakes for the latter. We do not fault ourselves, through love, because only trust can open a person up. Love partakes itself to memories. We comprehend of the universe through the lens of science that there is no “direction” in outer space. The Atheist would be one to believe God has no existence, because he or she cannot “see” Him. Then, to believe that out of trust we could perceive where we can be faulted, would not ever make God before us. Even if we were to turn around, our “mind’s eye” would simply shift itself on its opposite. For as humans exist in the universe, there is no direction, for ourselves, besides to another who we can trust for their practical and physical properties. That is, we cannot be in the “embrace of God”, unless we fall. And, we cannot be in the embrace of a human, unless we run to them.
There is no direction in the universe or outer space, because it is trust that signifies where we must look with physical eyes. Though, by our mind being able to hold memories for what is behind, in the past, makes makes such a direction appear as a “dead end”. That is, the past represents the “nowhere” we could return to, if our aim is to forfeit the act of moving forward. If we do run forward to the arms of someone we can recognize, then it was only because we did not forfeit the future. It is towards a direction that we move towards what we recognize. Then, it is in the understanding of having no direction, that we comprehend what the past symbolizes. The past is merely the symbol to having nowhere to go, because we have renounced our desire to move forward or “move on”.
If there is no mistakes through love, then it is correct to believe God as perfect. Is the Atheist who says the words, “God is dead” totally wrong? If it is the past that references death, being a place a human can only ever cannot physically return to without forfeiture of what should be recognized, then it would indeed makes everything that is absolute wholly important to the individual. If all futures are so uncertain to the human eyes, and never the mind, then the direction onward can make us feel fear. Though, to hold trust in the past, to God, to all that is certain, is the belief of knowing what is true. The past, or God, or faith, offers strength. If God’s word is referenced as the truth, then everything “truthful” would belong to death. Everything truthful, being as its absolute in the past, would pertain to what cannot return, unless it comes upon the individual as a “revelation”. As in, all we could fully trust, is in what we can remember. We can return wisdom to ourselves from past experiences, as it situates itself among all we can trust. Our “revelation” would then be a “second coming” of such wisdom, that does not ever cause a person to commit the same mistake twice.
Love and trust, being opposites. The latter is with the awareness for the future, though either in accordance to what we’ve previously experienced, or the blindness for which trust can stand. However, if we have not learned from the past, then we merely repeat our mistakes. In the repetition to our faults, we bring about deceit, will lead others to their doom, in the failed leadership we’ve displayed of submitting to our fear of the future. It was because others blindly trusted our capabilities of our physical and practical properties, never comprehending that they have a mind of their own.
“No human could immediately correct themselves, without needing convenience. Whereas, no human could form wisdom, without an extended time in suffering.”– Modern Romanticism
To think science would be needed, if there was a way for all humans to “grow up”, is the definition of ignorance. All humans, when errored or imperfect, displaying such in their actions, when observed by scientific eyes are granted as an idea for a correction. A correction. For to correct the error of a human, is progress. Is it “progress” to say that a human has been corrected of their error, through immediate convenience. We can also say that the human form, full of errors, is the definition to things so instantaneous, like lust, exiting as quick as it entered. As it is, all human bodies enter and leave this world like the flicker of lightning. To differ the body from the mind is to differ a “temporary” aspect from an “infinite” aspect.
We could not be errored beings, without our bodies. Not at all could we be understanding of our imperfections, of our flaws, without in the knowledge that such is seen in the mirror. Of our flesh, of what has been sculpted, perhaps to the detail of an amateurish artist. We can protect, out of love, though against what if we never interact, if we live alone?
Human interaction is the necessity to which a person finds error. Through observation, we see error, we criticize it, and then find a need to correct. Though, on the side of progress, wisdom is never for its sake. As in, wisdom does not heed progress’s wish. That is, for progress seeks correction of every imperfection, instantly. It is to the same example of a wound, needing its bleeding to quit. For when the act of pressure to the wound was performed, it was immediate in its desire, as quickly as the wound was observed to be severe.
Wisdom would tell a person to find a dutifulness in responsibility. Wisdom would tell a person to not commit the same fault, twice. Wisdom would tell a person that error is inevitable, and thus, should not be believed it can be extinguished, in absolution. It would be the case, upon two occasions: love or death, making either the time when we stop seeing errors, and consent to the outcome.
It is then that wisdom makes the human not needing progress, not needing science. For if all humans were wise, heeded the need to be responsible, no immediacy of science’s offered conveniences would be necessary. It is rather a petty revelation, to which science only exists to offer convenience, at the absence of wisdom, and the continued existence of human error. For the more errors that scientific eyes can notice, the more there is to correct. It would indeed take more time, to form wisdom. Though, to what science offers, makes time our greatest impatience, and the immediate moment making our greatest desire for a cure.
“Forgiveness cannot perceive fault, making all that possesses error go unsegregated from the perfected.”– Modern Romanticism
Forgiveness perceives nothing of imperfection, that it might always be aligned with the perfect. A perfected thing, is always in the awareness of love. Love, to its essence, is always for the imperfect to become its very opposite. Perfection is the forgiveness of imperfection, born out of love.
Though, to what we are limited in trusting, makes us nullified in forgiving what we fear. We fear, of things that cannot be trusted, making forgiveness an impossibility out of foreseeable betrayal. The human instinct to forgive is indeed limitless, due to that it is the one necessity for another being to continue their lives. To perceive the monster as such, stalls just a small portion of humanity, being of that person viewed as their beastly selves. For to not ever forgive, in seeing beyond imperfection, is merely to be ignorant of a story to what created this monster. Forgiveness makes the ascension of a human, to a point of development where they can speak of freedom, almost involuntarily.
Imperfection of what is distrusted, might one day be forgiven, if a person can remember a day when they were good. What should define “good” in this world, is the time before stagnation of development, had shadowed any intent to forgive such imperfection. It is upon imperfection, where forgiveness is laid, making what is good in the world becomes a uplifting of a person’s devolution. Their degrading selves, when forgiven, becomes ascended.
For to define “imperfection” makes it opposite from forgiveness. How can we forgive, to make perfect, the imperfection that still betrays us? If to say God is perfect, then upon the imperfection, He forgives to ascend into Heaven. This is said, as it is true human are able to do the same. For development is only ever possible, for the individual, when stagnation is no longer makes a person blind to a better outcome. Love forgives, as it always does. It is due to that love remembers, though holds a difference from trust. We are not trusted, when we remain imperfect, not ever holding faith in those who still remember us, as good.
To those who may see us imperfect, as monstrous, are for us to hold faith in them, that their love may recall a memory of our good selves. To that memory, we are forgiven, due to that we are comprehended to not have been born such a way. We understand a story that did not, by itself, cause corruption of the soul until a certain path was taken.
It is again to say that forgiveness perceives nothing of imperfection, to then recall the memory that makes a person perfect. For it is perfection that forgiveness perceives, beyond imperfection, making what has been recalled as merely the singular ingredient enough to purify.
“Science has no purpose, other than the benefit for the flawed form. Yet, to make the form perfect, is to also make the mind imperfect. We are insane, when we realize not our own limitations.”– Modern Romanticism
Mind and body, where the former is perfect, as the latter is not. No science comprehends the mind, in totality. As it is, all science questions existence, especially of God, because it is limited to what it can see. For what it can see, it is what science can work with, can alter into a different shape.
We are, with an obsession upon diversity, absent of our understanding of limitation. To all human imagination, it is casted solely upon the form. The human form, so limited, so flawed, only because it is visible. Perfection is invisible to human eyes. Therefore, no science will ever comprehend the mind, in totality.
The human mind, perfect, while the human form is imperfect. It is then that science thinks to make the form perfect, though is always at the cost of sanity.
What is sane, in this world, is the mind. Though, our sanity is lost, upon witnessing the alteration of what is visible. We are never altered upon viewing an alteration of perfection. Among all things perfect, it is never changed, first. Human forms change, first, resulting in the alteration of perfection in the mind. This is to say that sanity equates to perfection. It is to say that the “Creator”, of God, must be a being to relate to a “beginning”.
We are sane, we are perfect. Yet, upon the continual need to alter the form, force diversity, is to shove the needed realization of our limitations. For in one way or another, we will realize them.
Human minds possess imagination, though only for what is imperfect. We imagine the imperfect, the flawed, to become the perfect, the flawless. Again, upon the perfection of imperfection, we become insane.
This is all why love is said to be a madness. That, to become perfected, accepted, mended of wounds to the touch of that love, we become maddened.
“The lie is defined by internal intricacy. The lie is always within. The lie is never seen. It becomes truth, when no longer a lie. Place the spotlight on a so-called lie, and continue naming it a lie, and it is truth, never deception. Disregard what is a lie, because you do not notice it, do not question it, and it festers and creates the further complication.
All lies are themselves, before they are seen. Then, they are truth.
For how else does the Atheist say that God is a lie, if he cannot see Him? How else does the widow say that love is gone, because she can no longer see her beloved?
To believe in truth, merely means to believe it exists.”– Modern Romanticism
First and foremost, a scientist will say to the Christians that the God of love, or even of the religion, itself, possesses no logic. To the God of love, being only of the Christian God, there cannot be 2 or more gods of love. No other entity can claim love to be its promotion. Even an Atheist would agree that love is the emotion of union, of togetherness, of the creation of something that is protected so it doesn’t fall apart.
Were there to be 2 or more gods to represent love, love would be absolved of its objective definition. Its definition, to be of oneness, of togetherness, of completion, cannot be something of a feuding 2 or more in the same name.
Science will be what willfully attempts to deconstruct to analyze something. It does not seek to protect. It does not seek to keep together. It does not side with logic. For logic sides itself with the responsibility necessary to hold things from being divided. That is, it seeks to not allow any problems to exist, in the first place.
For a problem, a flaw or an imperfection, can only be of existence. What of God? He is said to be perfect. And, He is said even by Atheists to not exist. The Atheist, in this sense, falls into the trap of what Christianity comprehends, which is that “perfection has no existence”. God is literally “non-existent”, unless one believes in the power of love, which science does not. Science only “makes use” of what does exist, being of something that can be torn apart to be analyzed.
When we love, we seek to turn an imperfection into a perfection. Or, when we love, we seek to turn an existence into a non-existence. Though, such an imperfection, such an existence, will be of the form. When concentrating not on the form, we concentrate on the mind. It is love, not science, that sides with the mind. For it is not that we see the wound, though see through loving eyes to the greater wound being the fear, being the responsiveness of the world to that wound.
Every scrap of knowledge a human has obtained, has been gained for their bodies. How many articles seek to display in the write, the benefits for flesh and human structure?
Every scrap of knowledge is only ever truly beneficial for the human form, not the mind. Love is beneficial for the mind.
Every scrap of knowledge has been gained by human idiocies and stupidities. Love has tolerance, though science will concentrate itself on the human form for its imperfection and flaws.
It is moronic to believe that science sides with logic, when knowledge would be a nothingness were humans never to have something to destroy. Love does not destroy. Love protects the loved one from being further damaged. It is that a church, a home, a human form, can be damaged, because it possesses physical structure. It is that science believes itself to benefit structure. Though, it is not science that will never wish to see something destroyed, viewed as parts, in the first place. That is how knowledge is attained, by something dismantled, and then analyzed. It is love that wishes to not ever have something demolished, to begin with. Love will protect the form, with the mind that has been empowered by courage.
It is that love will benefit the mind, while science will remain the thing to rely on human ignorance for its achievements, to boast about. For pride has only ever belonged to human achievement, while to love will never be what a human boasts about.
A lie is differed from the truth, when we understand that a lie remains as the same. A lie remains asleep, though does not atrophy into a puniness. It is the wholeness, not ever changing itself, as people cling upon it. When an Atheist calls God a liar, he would be right, when we know even from Christianity that God is unchanging. Truth, of a person, is the person being manipulated by a word or a collection of words.
When an Atheist says he ‘does not believe in God’, it only means that he does not believe in God’s word, not in God’s presence. God’s presence is unchanging, because God’s presence was never physical, and therefore, not something to ever change. Does anyone, of a human on Earth, ever change with the course of time? Of course they do, by the grayness to their hair that comes around. Truth is the thing that is both changed and changes others, as humans who are changed by others, and also change others. We are manipulators, in a sense, and the reason we cannot be immortal, is because ‘change’ is inevitable.
We can only be arrogant enough to believe we are God, though will still be assassinated by the bullet. Science had not killed God, but merely stopped believing in one extra source to change humans. Or… is it that science is merely denying the fact that when God was said to ‘create Man in His own image’, God’s own creations are changing their own creations? That, it is an inevitable thing to occur, that humans would change humans, and it is merely the case that science is unknowingly acting to religion’s teachings?
Confusion: A correction is what you name to be a rising. Then, what else would you do, besides to raise?
Correction: Would it be better to fall?
Confusion: It would be better to be modest.
Correction: And only modest for a short time, before the one who raises remembers their place.
Confusion: And what do you, yourself, wish to do?
Correction: As someone who corrects, I actually do not exist to raise. I do exist, however, to remind. I remind others both of what they do, and what they’ve forgotten has always been an action, for them. I am not a corrector, but a correction; and, a correction that spreads among people so that they are corrected, both of what they’ve become, and also, and of what they’ve lived among, that is a place that has not changed.
Confusion: You believe nothing has changed?
Correction: I believe that when one seeks to change, one seeks to reverse. Upon the desire to reverse, one sees what is moving, steals that movement, turns at an exact angle of one-hundred-and-eighty degrees, and moves into the opposite direction. They’d not move at forty-five degrees, nor at ninety. And they’d certainly not move at two-hundred-and-seventy degrees, because that would be a waste of time, and the turner would be better-suited to turn the other direction at, again, ninety degrees. And… when one seeks to correct, one seeks to build. However, I am neutral, and I merely wish to stand still, rather than run with the movement. I merely wish to remind people, from both ends, that what they’ve always been doing, is merely an unending process.
Confusion: Has anything changed?
Correction: Everything has changed, as everything continues to change, mutate, morph, multiply, and diversify. It should even be assumed that a virus, an undead thing, has the ability to be dissatisfied, when it changes into a new strain of itself. However, nothing either has improved. We are humans with “interpretation”, and in such “interpretation” or “opinions”, we tear each other apart. How does conflict begin? It begins through an opinion. Where one has an opinion, another will have their own. In such a case as the 21st century in many nations of the world, a promotion of “opinions” creates a promotion of conflict. Though, a promotion of improvement, creates the urge to rebel.
“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.
“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?”
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.