Christianity – Modern Romanticism

A Critique on Paganism – Pt. 1 – “How the Physical and Real becomes Forgotten” – 1/24/2021

“That which becomes forgotten was meant to turn to ash. That which isn’t forgotten, is like the sun. As the sun continues to glow, and whenever it fades, we will not remember it. We only remember the sun, as it continues to warm us.”
– Modern Romanticism

Should a Pagan worship the physical, then it worships the endless supply of tools. It does not worship what can be loved, without it no longer being a tool. Usable, for the tissue paper made to wipe the eye of a tear, can be “worshipped”, though only because we found it practical. Have we lost sight of what it means to worship? Upon the Abrahamic God, who represents love, we cannot find practicality in Him. However, through our desperation, we wish for it. We believe in miracles, despite science having taken the place of “the practical”. Does Paganism then worship science?

Love is not practical. This would make the Abrahamic God neither practical, nor physical, and not even something in comparison to “existence”. Whatever “exists”, in this world, can be touched, can be held, and that to a human, is a physical and external thing. Though, love is not a tool. Do we say to a person, whom we love and cherish, that they have merely been whom we use? That would be betrayal. From betrayal, comes a lack of trust from the one betrayed. If we are meant to trust God, then how does God trust us? This would be more evidence into God being unable to be at all physical, if something in which can be used can also trust us. For what trusts us, is to the care of it. If we worship what can be used, then we depict reliance as something more necessary than what is within ourselves. Does a tool connect to another? Or, does a tool merely fix what is wrong with another? And, if a tool only ever fixes another’s problem, then it will never be able to understand a person, within.

No tool understands itself as such, until it is given purpose as one. Though, where is the purpose in being loved? There is none, if love cannot be used. Love cannot be what we say we feel, when we use people. Does the Pagan comprehend that “the physical” is nothing more than the sheer reliance upon endless possibility? Can we rely on God, or can we rely on science, to make the possible occur? Pagans would worship the latter, in that sense. All others, would comprehend and be sure of themselves. For all that is known of love, is to know the self, and thus, be honest with another, without deception.

We cannot discover the endless, in possibilities, within love. However, we can discover that love is an endless Creator to possibilities. As in, we cannot be dissatisfied, in love, were we to hold it in truth. We cannot be dissatisfied of a oneness, when those possibilities, endless as they are, cannot make us satisfied. If one ever witnesses a woman wishing for truth, though instead takes the endless into her arms, then nothing is ever whole. She takes the endless, with the continuance of a broken or unfulfilled heart.

Nothing that is physical, can be worshipped as love. Do we worship another person, for the sake of their love? Or, have we been worshipping them, depending on them, because they were merely useful?

To worship a God of love, is to find Him useful. That is against love. That is, even unknowingly, believing more in a tool, over love. Though, through our physical forms, we can act, if we love. Though, we cannot solve, if all we do is combat the endless problems of others with ever-more conflicting and debating people with their differing solutions. What we should solve, is a person, by knowing them at heart. That is love.

Book Concept: “Why Evil goes to Heaven” – On Forgiveness – 12/5/2020

“Did Christ die in vain, for only the smaller, less threatening, sins we can individualize and segregate from the greater horrors, on Earth? Surely, what with the crimson streams tainting the man’s flesh, upon the cross and dying, love is not to be symbolized as limited in its depth of forgiveness.”
– Modern Romanticism

We each possess an arrogance. The one that states we may control the outcome, of an individual. We act as miniature gods, to dictate the right from the wrong, of any person. We decide punishment, because forgiveness is never a choice. To do right upon another, would make humanity pure among all people. Yet, we’d lack the freedoms we “desire”. For we could only ever “desire” freedom, because it pertains to choice. And, because freedom pertains or relates to choice, it would make all objectively correct actions not belonging to choice.

How does freedom pertain to choice? Through punishment. How does restrain and confinement pertain to no choice? Through forgiveness. The individual who has done objective wrong, is one who forgives those around them, forgives the world, forgives society.

Out of choice, comes a desire, and only ever a lust, for freedom. Out of no choice, comes the right things to do, though at the causation of tyranny.

For Christ, forgiveness was of no choice, to him. For freedom’s sake, he’d turn to what only he’d want. Therefore, it was not to freedom’s sake, and so, he took the punishment upon himself. For all people will turn punishment to themselves, upon when they forgive all who wronged them.

We can become creative, when ascertaining the “possibilities” for punishment. Our creativity borders on the choices a person makes, when relating to their own freedom. This makes the Judge in a courtroom possess the need to punish the criminal, so that freedom is to both that Judge and the rest of society. Though, continuous judgements, continuous punishments, results in a world without correction.

Quote – “The ‘Uselessness’ of Love” – 11/26/2020

“Here, the scientist might say to love, among prayer, among God, that such things are impractical. Yet, it cannot be more obvious. Nothing of love, is practical, is utilitarian; so why would a scientist say such words so apparent? Is there ever ‘evidence’ for love, being metaphysical? Does not the scientist work with physical components, able to be dissected? Through dissection, a body is. Love cannot be dissected, for it is not physical. Not with use, so love cannot ever die. Eternal as it is, love cannot be killed. To the Atheist who says the words ‘God is dead’, most likely believes that memories can also die, at one’s whim.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The ‘Uselessness’ of Prayer” – 11/26/2020

“Though, it shouldn’t be, that through our innate comprehension of love, we’d ‘make use’ of that loved one, whether they’d be God, or of family to friendship.”
– Modern Romanticism

Do we love God?

Do we love our friends? Our families?

Could we love the source to all love? It is in the understanding of love, that we realize we should not ‘make use’ of all that is loved. Therefore, in prayer, in clasping our hands, we should not think that anything practical might be of its result. For that is against love.

Are we saying we should “use” love? Does love have a use, to say that who we place love upon is seen as using oil to fix the squeaking sounds of a door? Again, it is against love to say it holds utility.

Against love, we manipulate, through practicality. Against love, we deceive, through practicality. Against love, we consume, through practicality.

Love is all-knowing, all-seeing, all comprehending; and we may be the same, yet our human hunger stays us.

We want, we crave, we are lustful, so we pray to believe it will ‘do’.

It is an error to fall so easily into human greed, lust, and gluttony that we forget what love is about. It is about the simple understanding, among nothing more. For do we not, as we have a photograph of a deceased loved one upon a shelf, just stare upon it whenever we find it necessary? That photograph collects dust, when it is not touched. It is that we have no desire to “use” it, because it merely represents a memory of the past. A dead past. As it is, this is the objective definition to what is immoral of “using” that which is dead. We do not comprehend who we love, when we negate it by turning to such practicality.

Death is stillness, not the movement in the ravenous behavior that accompanies desire. Therefore, by our understanding of such stillness, it is love that is just as powerful as death.

All stillness, is not of use. And, are we not stilled, also silent, when deep in prayer? Yet, our craving human minds are wishing for the practicality from God. Why is that? Why is it that we have rejected, for so long, the mere notion that prayer is not compatible with practicality and utility?

Are we here to simply say we should manipulate, deceive, and enslave who we love? For is this not the reason we are to “submit” before God, before whoever we love? To never say we have control? Even an Atheist would agree with these words, if they are not the sort to believe it perfectly fine to manipulate who they love.

We are here to believe in love, to guide us upwards. An “ascension” merely equals “improvement”, among nothing more. We are led to Heaven, away from the wind. For the wind represents the forward motions of life. In the embrace of love, we are uplifted, escalated, and risen. The forward notion of life, represent the individual voices. Love leads, though leads up the mountain slope, up the stairs towards Heaven. Life leads itself in unpredictable, randomized directions. We have no control, so long as there is love.

The vain desire for a human to want control, to want a choice, epitomizes deception. Against love, there is choice. Against love, there is control. In our world, for whatever time period one points to, is always the area of idealistic implementation. Of selflessness, through invention, as the gift, humans follow.

Quote – “Does God Exist?” – 10/24/2020

“Of Love, of God, then to say that the latter has no existence, would be to say that the human can only live, without silencing themselves to express gratitude. In having no existence, is to have no life. Though, what being of Love, holds existence, when an expression of gratitude is always upon what is not at all a physical thing? We were given the meal. We consume the meal. To be given shelter, is to make use of it. To who we Love, however, we can never use, for they are not physical, not meant to be manipulated, not meant to be distrusted.”
– Modern Romanticism

Poem – “Stranded on my Knees” – Religion – 10/5/2020

How much blood
Can erase the letters on these worn pages?
I have become something else
To the bitterness
Of one heart, written in the soil,
Of one droplet of crimson,
Fed to my mouth.
He glistens on the cross,
He stays there,
Sheltering his own eyes with the sun,
Finding a place where I cannot run
To make my home.

Upon my knees,
Stranded in senseless belief,
For faith has never been my sculpture.
Blood runs wildly,
Wickedly
From my faucet of death.
I can keep love
Close to heart, eating tears to my drowning.
I can break,
Though can I build?
Can I see scenery
That never wilts?

Like a flood of everlasting
Terror to my face,
Trust can sculpt itself,
It can sculpt itself
To then have only the body drowned,
Never the features,
Never the mask,
Never the lies
I have swallowed whole,
Like one faceless serpent
Who can shed his skin,
Though never the tears to the soil.

Pain is the only emptiness
That I cannot feel.
Not like him,
Not him.

Poem – “Lived for Everything” – Religion – 9/10/2020

Count scars,
Limitless as stars.
Count truth
Whole enough to be broken,
As bread is consumed,
Chewed,
Digested,
Not like the lie
So easily swallowed.
A broken truth
Was once, in preparation,
A wholeness.

A broken form,
Beaten
Until bloody,
Is always the truth, reborn,
Though never
In the eyes of who broke it.

Would Christ
Break the truth,
As he broke bread,
As he gave wine?
Broken bread, as beaten flesh,
Drunken wine, as streaming blood.

He gave truth,
Offered it upon a silver platter.
Yet, it was broken
For the voice of reason.

While in love,
We live for the sacrifice.

When about to die,
We wish to not flee from life, in vain.

Poem – “His Eyes were Rotted from Light” – Religion – 9/9/2020

How much earth
Is needed to suppress the light?
The corpse, still aware
Until resurrection makes it declare
That the fog could be brighter,
That the dark could be whiter
With the bleeding shell of mercy.

He says to the road, ahead,
Among its inhabitants,
“We are stoned, as one.”
He breathes a moment
That lasts,
After his rising.

The destruction
Of construction
Loses always the dimension
For a world
To see only the surface.
His face shoulders the tears of new moons.

Old sons,
New daughters.
Old oceans,
Gray waters.
He never lost sight
Of a trembling mother in her woe.

How much birth
Is needed to suppress the darkness
Back into light?
A rotting skeleton,
A constructed corpse,
A rotting man whose eyes were reborn,
A funeral that lasts until the bride arrives.

Religious Philosophy – “The Difference Between a Belief and a Fact” – 7/31/2020

“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.

Quote – “How to Define a Lie” – 7/29/2020

“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

Quote – “As God is Formless…” – 7/22/2020

“Naming God to be formless, would mean of Him to not be lustful, not wanting of punishment to others, and not acting as any other human who would grin at the sight of ‘well-deserved’ vengeance.
All pleasure is felt of a human in the form. If such is the case, then God cannot punish. For if He possesses no form, then God is merely a head, the head, being what love is. If one denies this, then why is the infant meant to be born head-first? If we are ‘made in God’s image’, then we must show a sign to this upon our first moments.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Problem with Science” – 6/20/2020

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.