I rejected it because it was contradictory

Ok so as I see it this is like me saying. "God poked a quark and now you're here"

And also, if a book based on belief messed with these things; I'd reject it too

Well. Yeah. Can't argue against it really and why try?

otherwise I'm just ceding blind authority

It's annoying

It's time. Bro.

It's saying that time is an affect of god.

It's called faith for a reason.

@OF-8 Yes, time and motion.

You can kinda run with that logically.

exactly, but corruptible and blind faith

I reject those faiths

See I think motion is just a device to illustrate time.

Here in this paragraph.

Sure.

It can be used for control easily

So you'd oppress other people just for beliefs

hitler was a good man

in religion?

dont dare oppress me

Normally I can use science to refute religious argument. But science does not go against it.

Hitler was just doing his job

Science goes against a literal interpretation of the books

Science ought not be used to refute religion.

That makes no sense.

So we have our own interpretations, that is, masters in earth

Religion takes place in an entirely analytically separate circuit of the brain than logic.

it makes sense because you can't take the evolution and the data about the earth literally

You're attacking yourself.

So?

And it will cause you much useless suffering.

all the years

so it isn't compatible with a literal interpretation and again, you have masters in earth

your own subjective mind of belief and the priests

So now we come to this point.

If you have a literal understanding of your faith, you're retarded.

The good news is. So many people are retarded that it's not your fault.

If you fix it now.

"Created sick and ordered to be well"

I don't see how the two parts are in conflict. Aquinas makes an attempt to reconcile the too.