Explaining my previous post...

GET READY FOR THIS. There is going to be hellish english-student-esque attitude in the following paragraph. I can only apologise.
I know this is an incredibly novel thing to do. A nagging voice in my brain is whispering "copyright it copyright it", but I shall sweep that aside in light of the urgency of the situation. I'm going to 'explain' my last post because I fear it is a trifle too confusing even for the most scattered of brains to assemble.
Basically, the confusing format in itself was (I'm guessing) supposed to be a reflection of how confusing, contradictory, and frustratingly inconsistent I found the religious 'material' to be. To add to this, there are occasional references to modernday (phones, television, meerkats, girls speaking aloud/allowed etc.) - this was to emphasise the (apparent) inability to apply the already inconsistent ideas to an updated reality - it was not, as may be assumed, because I have *misunderstood* the timelessness of the ideas involved. I can think of a latin quote to justify this idea of changing times but I am well aware I have far outstripped the not-being-beaten-up-by-the-class-bully level of geekishness so I will keep that little gem of knowledge to myself. (Hehe...I could be lying and none of you would know! Really, there is nothing to brag about. Get on with it.)
And yes, before you ask, this is all a rather shoddy justification attempting to excuse what is an extremely odd expression of confusion. Because it is really very convenient for me to explain that I wrote tenously-linked ideas and bemusingly meaningless dialogue because that's exactly the impression I wanted to create. Damn. Reminded of a Sherlock Holmes quote about twisting facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts, but the scale of my geekishness is reaching an alarmingly perilious height as it is. Guess I managed to get away with it there without actually having to put in quotation marks (teehee).
Anyway. If I haven't explained this all to a sufficient extent (if? what do you mean, "if"??) this pictorial accompaniment will no doubt render both these blogs entirely superfluous: http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/2007/01/15/science-vs-faith/
Read on as you will. Interpret the confusion as you think best...IF YOU DARE.
I'm sorry. But I was aware I had managed to alienate even the most curious from reading the blog below, so I figured one more fear-driven incentive against wouldn't hurt.
Please, do read, and freely too. There's nothing (much) to fear. :)