“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.
“Science is not the encouragement of wisdom, in terms of teaching all to learn from their mistakes. Rather, science teaches us to learn from someone else’s mistakes, to gain benefits from someone else’s misfortune.”– Modern Romanticism
“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.
“Since when has the belief become a fact? Since when did we need scientific proof for something as a belief? Since when did this occur, when even love itself needs no science for its existence, when it cannot remain around without faith or trust?”– Modern Romanticism
A fact requires evidence. A belief, however, does not.
There are far too many Christians, Atheists, and people on the verge of losing their “faith” to become Atheists, who look at figurative writings, to be literally viewed. For all things literal must mean that they have science to them, in their proof.
Though, that cannot be the case, when a belief has nothing for its proof. To look upon any religious tale, to say that it had literally occurred, goes against what a religion is, being a belief. If any subject matter to a religion is taken in a literal fashion, then it becomes not a belief, though something made to be proven as a fact.
If a Christian states that God is real, then he or she believes in that. If the Atheist questions this, and wants physical evidence on the realness of God, then that Atheist has forgotten that religion is centered around faith. One cannot, to a religion, any of them, ask for physical evidence, for a metaphysical notion of something believed in. It simply erases the idea that religion is centered around belief, around trust, and around faith.
For the Christian will believe in what the Atheist does not have faith in, and nothing more. If the Christian God is said to be of love, then no other religion can claim love to be its representation. For if there were two deities to be of love, then that would make all Christians reject the 1st Commandment, making the Christian God to be physical. Again, that is to reject the notion of Christianity being a belief, not of anything physical, turning it into something fought to be proven.
If any Christian, or any religious person, states their deity to be a real, physical being who “exists”, then they’ve rejected the idea that a religion is about faith.
For no “faith” could be proven with physical evidence, without such faith turning into a place where humans wish to be God. In the rejection of the 1st Commandment, a Christian has believed that a human could be God, out of arrogance, because of their fight to prove God of His physical realness. The Christian becomes the average fool, when he or she believes God to be as real as any other human, when the 1st Commandment speaks otherwise.
“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.
The power of reason has been on the side of science, when it is the thing opposite from love. Why is reason opposite from love? It is because reason dissects what all people are satisfied and content with. This is within the power of love, to be content with what one already has. Love, as an emotion, that one feels with family, is full of gratitude and trust. Devotion and dedication, among the feeling of thankfulness, is there to accompany love in the realm of contentment.
To deny now that science always questions what people are satisfied with, would be just that. It would be sheer denial and blindness to state that science has not, for so long, questioned how people are satisfied with what they have, or otherwise ignorant of what they can have.
When it comes to a person cheating on their spouse, their reasons could be many, but their motive is one. Their motive was the opposite of love. Their motive was dissatisfaction. In that state of discontent, they were ungrateful, undevoted, and disloyal. All these things have to do with the power to reason out or away the contentment of oneself.
Convenience is nothing for the realm of love. Necessity, in fact, is something that love is for. And yet, science is content in its own way to tear down other people’s contentment, in favor of “knowledge”. In extreme ways, it will destroy families, like the family unit being disrupted. Because, nothing can be learned, without pain, as the common wisdom goes. But, to cause that pain on a deliberate scale, is evil, indeed.
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?