The only ones who aren’t “religious” are the dead.

Marriage was created by God to teach mankind, in the deepest fibers of their being, that He loves them.

Loves them so much that He wants to be united with them forever.

Loves them so much that He wants to take all humanity into union with Him, as His family, as His bride.

Loves them so much that when He expresses His love, the outpouring of His love enters humanity so powerfully and completely that it becomes a Person, and is given a Name.

So He prepared humanity for the reality of His love by writing into the helices of their DNA a profound and echoing lesson: That a man may love a woman so much that he desires to be united to her forever, that he takes her into union with him as his bride, and when he expresses his love for her, the outpouring of his love enters her so powerfully and completely that it may, sometimes, become a person, and nine months later, be given a name.

This is the cosmic fundamental lesson of the history, indeed the humanity, of the human race.

Which is why, seven-and-a-half billion years from now, when the sun expands to scorch and consume all the planets out to Mars, those who today trust in the Person who is God’s outpouring of Love, and who has a Name above all others, will still be alive.

And there will still be no such thing as homosexual marriage. Not because people do not change; they change all the time. But marriage is an expression, in the end, not of human nature, but of God’s nature. It is an echo of His voice, a glimmer of the Beatific vision.

And God does not change.

Now my question is, as an artist, how do I paint or photograph scientifically? When I write and record music how do I do that scientifically? I agree that when I record I am using science because the devices I use were manufactured, and science drove all of the materials to be created.

If in my art and music, especially fringe art, is scientific would there not be a way to decode the process and thus teach it? Sort of like teaching trig or violin?
How do you explain creativity scientifically? The reason I ask, is that a lot of creative people are inspired by the unknown. If everyone in the world thinks scientifically, and takes out the unkown, then creativity would be lost.

“No, I do not believe in ghosts or the supernatural.

Scientists love to use the word coincidence? Really? What does that even mean? Did a spirit guide tell you that?

And I am 100% right that there is no scientific evidence which supports the existence of gods, ghosts, or goblins or any other of the left over mythical crap from the dark ages.”

That crack me up to think that your head must almost explode everytime a horror movie comes out. And it’s a great thing that Death Metal has never made it to top 40 radio. I think that would hurt a lot too.

These are all people who create and there is not always reason to it. If you saw the method to how I paint, there is zero way for me to predict what ends up on the canvas. So is it still scientific? Artist use matter to create, but can it be explained? Even art historians cannot explain exactly was artists of old meant when they painted their works. I had two extremely different Doctors of Art History at university and neither gave the same explinations on the same paintings. That’s somewhat non scientific, eh? Art history for the most part is a hypothesis.

For the record, I am an art dealer. I deal in fringe art. Things that would make your scientific eyes bleed! So I am curious if your views strip me and the artists I rep of our creativity because we allow ourselves to think outside of the rational box?