Other № 129755
The Servant and The Messenger
Beloved though you are to me
and coveted by man.
I stray not from my path for you.
For I am under higher authority
and by way of itâs command
can serve one master but never two.
Unless my master is the one
who sent the words that you should speak.
Then I shall be compelled to ask for proof.
Only then shall I leave the road Iâm on
and this new path shall I seek.
Whether itâs end be near or aloof.
Unsheathe the sword of truth before my eyes.
So that I may see that god has changed his mind
or I shall live the same life I have lead.
For I will take only the road to paradise
and not even the mightiest of angelkind
can persuade me with words that god has not said.
122 comments
Damn, I've got to stop posting poems when I'm half asleep.
This probably hasn't cleared things up but at least i gave it a try.
I've always considered myself as a bit of a paradox so my confusing you isn't surprising. But I know what I believe even if logic say's it's a contradiction. Jesus was accused of being contradictory too. I think at some point all religions are and yet I'm still religious. Go figure.
If you said something that spoke to my heart (as many of your poems have) it could possibly change my belief in something.
If you have infinate potential then why not have any darn thing you want exist including God or whatever. If you say God is beyond our imagination than God stands above all things we see or imagine. The big bang seperates nothingness and infinate potential into matter and anti-matter. So this is my obviously biased take on creation. I choose to believe because in my heart it feels write, because I just want to. So faith and belief are basically whatever floats your boat.
I'd say belief/faith is "thinking something is true despite proof to the contrary." In my sense of the word, thinking that the Big Bang happened or gravity will cause my pants to fall down if I leave them unbuckled is not belief/faith. God IS beliefaith. Of course, this is all rot because God-believers will say they see proof of God in a sunset or a newborn baby's smile. But then, believers say a lot of other slightly silly things like, um, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" or "untennable".
The reason I'm rambling on about this is, well, sorry, but I don't understand a lot of the rest of your comment. Sure if you have infinite potential you can make God exist, but what makes infinite potential exist? In at least 3 out of 10 people, a combination of silliness and laziness, I'd say.
I have my suspicions about this idea but it sounds to me like they might be close to what the real answer is.
You got any ideas? I'd be happy to hear them.
For example, with the amount of mental effort it takes for you to believe in the existence of infinite potential, I can:
- believe in the non-existence of infinite potential,
- believe in the non-existence of nothingness,
- believe that the existence of infinite potential means an infinite potential that God DOESN'T exist,
- make a cheese sandwich.
They're all just as easy, see? As far as nothingness on an infinite scale existing in a realm of infinite possibility, I disagree. Imagine for a moment there are only two possibilities concerning my existence (I know that's impossible, but imagine for a moment):
1) Either nothingness can exist on an infinite scale, or it can't.
2) Either I'm wearing pants right now, or I'm not.
As far as the hypothetical reality above goes, is there an infinite possibility? No, there are only two possibilities. Can nothingness exist on an infinte scale? Yes. To make infinite nothingness exist, you only need one potential thing: the potential for infinite nothingness. See what I mean? If you don't, we need to get -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. back from vacation in Leeds to tear us both to pieces on this.
On a side note, some ancient thinker (Augustine?) said that since human consciousness can't fathom the concept of infinity, he can't have invented it by himself, therefore: God. This is kind of balls. Anyone will tell you infinity is just the highest number you can think of plus one, a concept which even the dullest among us can fathom.
The element Gold, Au, Atomic Number 79, is intimately linked with the Divine. Just read Revelations to get at least some idea of what The Splendour Of Gold actually means before questioning my position. I suppose you think gold became Splendid on its own? Is that what YOU believe?
May I suggest the use of an Ecclesiastical Censer in your worship? As its name implies, a censer is an instrument having to do with incense and, particularly in ecclesiastical parlance, its use in the Divine Liturgy. In the Judeo-Christian Tradition, incense has always played an important role (Ex 30:1-8; 37:25-29). The liturgical censer, as you may know from studying these matters, is a metal receptacle, usually bronze, but sometimes gold, in which burning charcoal is placed and over which is poured the incense to be burned. To this receptacle are attached chains, which enable the priest to swing the vessel for the incensation of the Blessed Sacrament. Granulated aromatic resin is usually used to produce a fragrant cloud of smoke, symbolizing prayers rising to God.
The use of incense comes into the Church from pagan worship (hence the Church's misgivings concerning it during the first centuries) and, as abundant references to incense in the Old Testament would seem to indicate, from Judaism as well.
So, why not apply the musty odor of Mould smoke to your worship, which when mixed with the odors your parishioners, be there any, will maintain a fungal ambiance to the Service.
Joshua 9:5
As far as nothingness goes (and, despite everything, apparently continues to go), it's silly to say that the potential of nothingness to create something comes from the nothingness itself and not from the something-created. Besides that, there's no reason to believe nothingness ever created anything. Again, that strikes me as something that you believe in so you can believe in God. Which is kind of a backwards way of going about things, if true.
God and Gold are splendid because we see them that way but gold can lose it's splender and still be gold.
Maybe god spoke us into being so that someday we might return the favor. Before us God would have existed without any objective definition. So maybe what our purpose is, is to find God and define God.
Moses knew not how to pray like that when God first spoke to him (No matter what mister Heston might have done in the movie). The bible also says God is everywhere so why would God have to send a message from space if God exists in even the tiniest particle in our bodies. It's like calling someone on your cell phone thatâs standing right next to you.
By the way I think your Gold/God thing makes some good points. Especially when you look at their effects on us throughout history.
I'm touched that you've found some good points about The Splendour Of Gold. Throughout history, man has burrowed for Gold. This has led me to believe that Jesus also spent much of His time living in a burrow. A great number of early christian doctrines actually held that Jesus inhabited an elaborate warren complex near Nazareth, but these were later superseded by more romantic depictions of Christ's life. I think it's shameful the way man pollutes historical texts with his own views on what constitutes Glory or Holiness.
Finally, regarding your assertion that God doesn't need to transmit is communications from Heaven, via Space, then down onto planet Earth, I will refer you to the first two lines of the Lord's Prayer:
"Our Father,
Who art in Heaven,"
Now why would the prayer say our Father was in Heaven, if he was actually somewhere else, or everywhere else? He's obviously not in Hell. He isn't in unclean places, like slop buckets, or cesspits. There may be spiritual nodes situated within every living cell (excluding bacteria), or every clean spirit, but these nodes are far from autonomous, and must establish a connection to the Primary Hub in Heaven, mediated by some form of radiation owing to the physical constraints imposed by the vacuum of Space.
Even if God found someone who had no idea of God's existance they would still need to first come upon the awareness of God's presence before they could realize what God is.
Ps. 139:7-12
God is everywhere. We cannot escape His presence.
1 Ki. 8:27
The heavens cannot contain God.
Jer. 23:23-24
No one can hide from God. He is always near at hand. God fills the heaven and earth.
Heb. 4:13
There is no creature hidden from God's sight. All things are naked and opened to His sight.
Acts 17:24-28
God is man's creator. God is not far from us. In Him, we live and move and have our being.
If we seek God, we will find Him. But if we forsake God, He will cast us off (1 Ch. 28:9; Matt. 7:7-12; Ja. 4:7-10).
God's everywhere (in heaven and earth) except hell which is the absence of God.
Paul says to "lift up holy hands, without wrath and doubting" in prayer. That seems more to me like welcoming God with open arms
not firing a signal or lighting a beacon but I could see you making a satellite dish comparison. I think when God speaks to us it's not some transmission but that he is actually there speaking from within to your soul which lives in a burrow without cable or satellite. To argue religion is pointless because it's based in interpretation and usually few facts.
This has been very enlightening.
You've made points that will have me soul-searching for hours to come.
The Gold/God thing: I was thinking more how men have gone to war over both. Left thier families behind for both etc. I think you could make a great poem out of it.
Maybe the find/define issue is more like the chicken/egg question.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
I used it in most of my comments to you.
Do you always resort to saying Ha Ha! I was just kidding when someone exposes what a true buffoon you are. I've seen you use this cop out before. I assumed you just wanted to try to argue for the sake of arguing and I figured why not considering it's a hell of a lot more creative than your poetry. The fact that your a pathological lier only shows us all how pathetic you truly are.
You act as if you convinced me about all your bullshit but any intelligent person who reads all the comments can see at some point I'm just getting bored and tired and just telling you what you want to hear. I will waste no more words on your pretentious diaper wearing "breeches". Later fag.
My god your obsessed.
Yours sincerely, "He who is Exceedingly Splendid"
But you do it so convincingly.
You are the Howard Stern of Poemranker.
Congrats.
Regarding the rest of your comment, obviously we're here in some way.
For a new topic of debate see my newest poem Out of the White Hole. It's about black holes and the subconscious and has little to do with body orifices. I know that was shameless.
I noticed in your comments to people that you said you "shun the idea that God would rather speak to us through angels and preachers than simply directly through our own hearts." Yet you quote the Bible and speak of the Summa? What is wrong with God using things or people to speak to us. . .to our hearts even? Maybe that is the way He prefers to speak to our hearts at times and at other times He does it without any of this. Maybe He choses the how and not us. It would make sense afterall that He set it up however it is He does it if He is God.
The bible is hearsay. God spoke to men who then spoke to people etc. until someone finally wrote it down. A record of God and his teachings. Is Socrates talking to you when he teaches Plato? Of course not. I'm sure their both happy their teachings are being retaught by mankind but it's still not same thing. If you read the bible and the actual spirit of God does not come to you and speak to your heart in a language unspoken, unheard, and that only your heart can decipher than you are simply reading a book about God and his teachings. A book that's been manipulated by greedy men so much that I'm supprised it still packs a punch.
"What is wrong with God using things or people to speak to us. . .to our hearts even?" What's wrong with it is what the poems about. I mean how do you know if God ain't there to say "Yep I sent him" or "Yep I said exactly what he wrote in that book."?
Well formulated question by the way, tadpole.
Recipe for Religion:
Take 5 parts previous believed things
10 parts exageration
4 parts promise
6 parts fear
Sprinkle a dash of common sense
Mix until resembling a compelling story
and voila
Faith depends on personal preference or devine intervention.
I have faith that the scenario in your comment has never truly taken place in anyone save for those who met God.
Your definition of faith is an unhindered one. Which doesn't really exhist in human nature. Even Jesus had apprehension the night before the Crucifixion according to the bible. Faith starts from within not because someone says so and most certainly involves either emotion or logic but not necessarily both.
Even hypnotists and brain washers must first somehow break in to your inner psychy before they can control what you believe.
The crux of religion is a gut feeling.
Don't you think religion should be found by hearing the words of others and comimng to your own conclusions based on what you feel in your heart should be true. The other approach just scares the hell out of me. It's easier to assume the priest or bible translator is always right than to study a belief system on your own but it is also much less rewarding.
In a way both definitions are right but I'd rather bet my soul on my own conclusions than on someone elses.
Screw specific religion. I would rather read the gospel according to Dovina any day of the week. At least I know I'd be entertained. After all you are the temple of the lord.
You are wise, my child, in heeding the Gospel of Dovina, for she has the one and only true message.
Affectionately,
Dovina,
General Manager of the Universe
Secondly, to both you and Dovina, I'd add that faith is holding something to be true DESPITE the evidences of your senses to the contrary. Consider: You don't have FAITH that matter is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons bound together by unimaginable forces, despite that you have no real evidence for it. You don't have evidence that space is infinitely huge, but holding that to be true isn't what any of us would call FAITH. (nb here-Dovina's quibble involves the expression "take it on faith" and has little to do with what we're talking about.)
People DO, however have FAITH that some part of a person exists beyond the physical body and death, despite that all the evidence points toward dead people being pretty much gone. People have FAITH that the world was made by God one week about 6,000 years ago, despite that there are dinosaur bones apparently millions of years old, records of human existence from tens of thousands of years ago, and all kinds of other evidence for a world billions of years old. Faith's not just holding something to be true without evidence, it's holding it to be true AGAINST evidence.
Sorry to interrupt, but we've had this argument for days before without realizing that vocab/definition problems had us talking about totally different things. Another hint: Don't use the words 'faith' or 'belief' to mean 'holding something to be true'. Use 'holding something to be true'.
Secondly, I think you are talking about blind faith. Less just say faith is believing what you wish to be true or like you said hold to be true. You can have faith in something consistantly proven like a devoted wife. It's funny. I have faith in God and Jesus but no religion.
People have faith because of the following:
BIFF: Why does the sun go up and down?
CLARK: I dunno.
BIFF: Maybe somebody's making it move?
CLARK: Sure, but who?
BIFF: I dunno. Big guy, I guess. Invisible.
CLARK: Man, I'd hate to piss him off. Probably drop the sun on my head if I did.
BIFF: That reminds me of when my mom got a mammoth dropped on her head. Dang, I wish death didn't suck so bad!
CLARK: Yeah, but it does, though, doesn't it?
BIFF [musingly]: But maybe not... I bet if anyone could improve death, the Big Sun Guy could!
CLARK: Yeah, but your mom's dead. We ate her.
BIFF: Not if she had some invisible lifeforce that superexisted her body! Like, I dunno, a soul, I guess.
CLARK: What the fuck are you talking about?
BIFF: The soul. The source of your morality, stupid!
CLARK [clubbing Biff to death]: What morality? [Then,] Oh crap! Biff's dad's gonna kill me to protect his family interests! What the fuck?
BIFF'S DAD: Big Sun Guy's gonna kill your ass!
CLARK: No, no! Wait! Big Sun Guy teaches tolerance and forgiveness of sins!
BIFF'S DAD: Really? Isn't that kind of pussy-like?
CLARK: You can't call Big Sun Guy pussy-like, he'll kill your ass.
BIFF'S DAD: Oh, right. My bad.
[And so on. Ad infinitum, amen.]
For the last time, evolution didn't build us. Evolution didn't have us in mind when it started. Evolution is not a sentient being or a process capable of predicting itself the way, say, scientists sometimes predict it. Scientists did not build us. Scientists did not create evolution. Scientists have had no control over evolution to date, and have very little now. Speaking of any process by which humans are "built" (excluding the process of God or gods creating the earth) is about equivalent to saying, I don't know, the universe or undersea ridges are "built". If you persist in using the term "built" for things which don't (according to me) involve a sentient builder, I must persist in considering you a religious and, consequently, ignoring you.
If you've got to say something about the matter, try something like this:
A set of myriad circumstances has resulted (meaning, at the present moment) in the so-called dominant species on Earth having a tendency to develop faiths and to afterwards wonder about such matters as whether it was built to develop faith.
If you're going to argue with anything, argue with that. But I wouldn't recommend it.
DOVINA: Evolution isn't sentient. It made us.
ZODIAC: Evolution isn't a thing capable of making. It's a theory, a way of rationalizing phenomena. You're like saying the metric system made centimeters (or, better, it made distance).
DOVINA: Evolution isn't sentient. It made us.
ZODIAC: Urggh.
(and by God I mean Vin Diesel)
I CANNOT believe that in some poorly ventilated back corner of your mind you're not clinging to some inexpressible ill-formed notion that evolution is a coherent process with (to exaggerate just a little) a goal of producing creatures with certain characteristics, such as continuing their species better and formulating complex philosophical muckamuck. That's because aside from constantly saying "Don't believe that", you've given me no reason not to. If you really did think evolution was essentially a theory for rationalizing chance phenomena, then you would have realized along time ago that it's utterly pointless to add "we have faith because evolution made us that way" to every conversation you've ever been involved in.
We have faith, and a possiible source of our propensity for faith is evolution. Perhaps we surveve better with faith than without it. I see nothing non-sensical about saying that. I keep saying it because you keep not getting it.
2) Let's agree for the sake of areguemenete that by 'evolution' you mean and have always meant 'a series of near-random phenomena' - which would be the right thing to say, incidentally. Yes, then 'evolution' resulted in faith. It 'made' us have faith.
So what????? So-FUCKING-what???!?
Consider: 'Evolution' also made me have an ass mostly free of hair. Does that make my mostly hair-free ass any more fucking meaningful than it would be if it weren't a product of evolution? No. Does that make my ass any more meaningful than a hairy-assed person's would be? No. If in an alternate reality all humans were born with hairy asses, do you think they would either (a) fail to invent evolution, or (b) have somehow failed at evolving? No. They'd have a theory of evolution that explains, I don't know, humans developed hairy asses to pad their spines while sitting on hard office chairs. Why wouldn't they? It's a fucking measurement system for rationalizing a set of circumstances that has already produced them the way they are (ie, among other things, people who need measurement systems for rationalizing things). If it didn't explain why they had hairy asses, if it wasn't amazingly coherent to their real lives, it would be a horrifically failed theory, wouldn't it? So basically, saying that something is a result of evolution has NO CONVERSATIONAL OR DISCUSSIONAL VALUE. NONE. NOT AT ALL. Who in his right mind would think saying something's a result of evolution gives it any meaning at all? You would. Why? I don't know, because it has four-syllables, maybe, and four-syllable words sound important to you and you desperately need some kind of meaning having cast off God and gone running naked into traffic. It's not bloody like you've bothered at any point in this conversation touching on how evolution gives any trait importance. You've just spurted the word 'evolution' about 50 times into the conversation and expected us to all be as impressed with you as you are. If you're going to argue anything, please start arguing that. Thanks, and all my love,
zodiac
PS-Stick. I did understand and you don't.
So you remember,
HOMEWORK - Agree or disagree with the following thesis. "Saying something is made by evolution gives it some importance or argumental value it lacks otherwise."
- a dishwasher explosion,
- Wonder Years re-runs,
- prison gang-rape,
- the 1984 Olympic games,
- water on Mars.
A good scientist can make a theory that incorporates and explains all of these phenomena. Let's call this theory "Jimboism". If a slightly dim person studies Jimboism, she'll be astonished that dishwashers, re-runs, gang-rape, the 1984 Olympics, and water all act UNFAILINGLY according to this theory. She'll tend to credit the dishwasher, etc, with an extra importance, with some magic synchronicity. None of these things deserve that, the scientist does. Do you see yet?
You'd have done better to say (as you almost have) that calling faith, etc, a product of evolution is important because it relieves you of responsibility for faith. Not only can you be excused for trying to be faithless and then rushing desparately back to God, but you know that people who try not to have faith ARE IN FACT UNNATURAL AND ACTING AGAINST THEIR NATURE. And some other cool evolution-produced traits fall into the same category! Like,
- Killing in self-interest,
- Stealing from non-relations to provide for your genetic line,
- Eating fatty foods if you're a woman,
- Being vain and appearance-centered if you're a man or woman,
- Being horny and desperate if you're a man or woman.
So hey, that IS pretty useful! But wait, wasn't there a point in history where evolution made pre-humans have grasping toes for a specific purpose related to survival of the species? And don't we NOT have grasping toes now? So doesn't that mean that characteristics "made by evolution" - even including faith, reproduction, and fat-eating - can become non-essential or obsolete, and therefore our own responsibilities again?
Judges' ruling: NO SCORE FOR YOU.
I think at this point you're just being antagonistic for its own sake.
I think at this point you're just still not getting it because you're helpless about such things. You probably don't even remember exactly what this conversation's about.
DOVINA 10-Oct-05/1:32 AM:
We have faith in God because we are built to have such faith.
ZODIAC 10-Oct-05/11:08 AM:
By whom are people built to have faith?
DOVINA 10-Oct-05/12:00 PM:
Maybe pure evolution.
ZODIAC 10-Oct-05/12:14 PM:
Evolution didn't build us.
ZODIAC 10-Oct-05/12:47 PM:
And what's the point of saying that anyway?
DOVINA 14-Oct-05/5:52 PM:
Blaaaaaaaat.
You are talkng about an abstract concept know as 'faith', where someone who believes in God has 'faith', and someone who is an atheist does not.
I'd like to extend that concept and change it a little. What I believe is inherent within human beings is not the capacity for faith but the prayer for deliverance - or hope.
Any human being has prayed for help at least once in his life; for example, you walk around the corner and see that your house is on fire and your family is inside. The first thing that whips through your mind is, 'Please, let them be all right'...
Most events in life can't be controlled. Hoping for something to turn out okay is essentially the same as a prayer to God, Luck, or the laws of physics; and this is, in my opinion, a trait common to all living beings, on different levels.
I'd like to argue that this, in fact, should replace the concept of 'faith' that you are disputing. Change it to 'prayer for deliverance'.
Do animals 'hope', or 'pray for deliverance'? Why shouldn't they, in the sense that I described? In fact, the entire concept of 'God' is, basically, just an extension of this tenet based on the fact that humans have superior, more developed brains; allowing them to develop this *extremely* basic idea along with the development of their brains over time, or evolution, if you will.
So in my opinion, what I would say is:
The hope of being delivered from trouble is a universal trait and common, on one level or another, to all sentient beings. Humans, having superior brains, have developed from this a concept of 'God', 'religion' and 'faith' as an outlet and a reason for hope - we will always hope for the best, because God is with us. However, since most phenomena can be explained perfectly well by physics, faith is no longer a necessity in modern life, and has been spurned by atheists; however, every human (faithless or not) continues to hope.
It is, however, probably true that faith developed as a result of hope. When life or death depended on, say, rain falling at a certain time or there not being a drought, people made up physical manifestations of their hopes of not dying, with backstories and other semiunrelated powers. All of this and all of the preceding conversation, of course, hinge on there not having been at any point in history a voice from the sky telling people to have faith. Given that this doesn't even come under discussion here unless I, the best atheist of all of you, drag it in, I proclaim us all spectacularly unqualified to discuss any of this.
In addition, the inevitable next phase of this conversation, "Don't atheists really have FAITH that God DOESN'T EXIST?", should be avoided at all costs, lest we all actually do go blind from stupidity.
Trust starts in the psychy. It may need something outside to effect it but like all other human perceptions it starts in the brain and is effected by your own psychological preferences.
If my interpretation (I don't think I ever said I was 100% sure) of one little thing said by a semi-ancient race of people is to be called religion than your interpretation of what your reading right know is to be called religion too. Philosophy can also be borrowed from some vague semi-ancientness, exaggerated, and so totally changed to meet your needs.
This is a religious: "I believe in a philosophy."
ADDENDUM: *For all X excluding "in a philosophy" and its synonyms.
You can argue I've said "A person who says 'I believe X' is a philsopher", but even that's not much of a leg to stand on.
And for that, it works. A philosopher does say, I believe X. So does a religious sometime. But a religious also says, I believe in a philosophy (and, NEW ADDENDUM) a philosopher doesn't.
I retract my first addendum and all your argument from the beginning is moot.
This is John: "Lawnmower".
Is John a lawnmower?
I just think the Summa had a good theory.
If I believed Nietzsche would it be religion?
The things I believe whether scientific or religious in nature are effected by personal preference although mostly on a subconcious level.
This is a philosopher: "I believe because it makes sense"
This is religious: "I believe because it feels right"
Philosophers believe in a philosophy too.
It strikes me that the only advantages of claiming adherence to some preexisting-but-flawed philosophy rather than simply expressing what you hold to be true (barring the actual existence of a God who can put hot coals on your feet) are:
1) it saves time, and
2) you think it lends some credibility to what you believe, so your not just a wacky guy who believes wacky things, but a follower of Summa.
That's all fine, but REALLY? I mean 1) the time you save is bound to be re-lost explaining or justifying all the things you don't accept in your claimed preexisting philosophy, and 2) if you need to give yourself credibility you're not such an ace believer, are you?
Secondly, the rest of your comment shows you make what we'll call THE POETE'S DISTINCTION between things making sense and things feeling right (or being a "personal preference"). I believe a reasoning person would say "things that make sense feel right and things that don't make sense don't feel right." Only an unreasoning (and therefore, dupish) person would say "things that make sense don't feel right, and things that feel right often don't make sense." These are people constantly on their guard for scientists and Democrats trying to trick them into committing evil with their everpresent 'facts and figures'. Balls to them, I say. Balls, balls, balls.
Thirdly: I doubt if Socrates would have said he was Socratic. Plato would, though. Jesus probably thought he was a Jew.
I quoted the Summa because their idea is so simular to mine and they wrote it down first. I also was able to expand my idea a little based on their idea. So I thought I'd give credit were credit is due. I have gained some credibility by not lying and saying it was all my idea. I know it's a bit Beaver Cleaver of me.
ADDENDUM:
This is a philosopher: "I believe only because it makes common sense"
This is religious: "I believe because it feels right"
The idea is that a philosopher bases what he believes on common sense, scientific knowledge and plain old logic. Yes it probably feels right but feelings aren't the basis for his belief.
Religion sometimes makes sense and sometimes doesn't but it is always based on the feelings of its believers.
I don't think I ever disagreed with that third comment.
DOVINA: Saying that something is made by evolution gives it importance because it says that it fits a theory. Therefore it's understandable. For example, evolution, the theory designed to explain the development of faith (among other things), can explain the development of faith.
ZODIAC: That's totally ridiculous. In addition, if either faith or evolution were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what they are now, the theory designed to explain them would still explain them. That wouldn't make the hypothetical nonfaith or nonevolution any more important. In addition, the real reason claiming evolution gives faith importance is by making it outside of our control, it's in our natures, like reproduction or fattiness. Why don't you respond to that?
DOVINA: Blaaaaaat.
Log in to add a comment.