<span>Nanahuatzin and
Tecuciztecatl are two Aztec Gods who have different characteristics far from
each other. Nanahuatzin or Nanahuati is the most humble of all gods. He sacrificed
himself so that he would continue to shine on earth as the sun by throwing himself
to the fire. The meaning of Nanahuatzin is “full of sores”. Usually, Nanahuatzin
is depicted as a man emerging from fire. Tecuciztecatl or Tecciztecatl on the
other hand, is the lunar deity in the Aztec mythology. He represents the old “man-in-the-moon”.
In the stories, it is said that all were living in a universe dominated by a
generation of sun gods. The first few sun gods either perished by wind storms,
jaguars, and fiery rain or by flood. After the fourth sun perished, Nanahuatzin
and Tecuciztecatl vied for the honor of becoming the next sun god. A bonfire was
built for it is there that they will sacrifice the next volunteer. It was
Nanahuatzin, a poor god, who was favored by the majority to be the next sun
god. Tecuciztecatl pushed that he was more deserving but at the last moment he hesitated.
It was because of Nanahuatzin’s courage that he jumped into the fire. But then Tecuciztecatl
gained courage too and followed the lead of Nanahuatzin. The other gods were
mad at the rich and proud Tecuciztecatl for he had followed the humble
Nanahuatzin and so they threw an imprint of the rabbit’s shape dimming Tecuciztecatl’s
brightness. This is the reason Tecuciztecatl’s brightness could only be seen at
night. </span>
Answer:
Are you saying Science is a gift but a curse at the same time?
Explanation:
In a sentence, the subject of the whole paragraph is the topic sentence.
Answer:
This can lead to, if the other person's idea is more popular or the other person themself is, the great thinker being discredited and/or disliked. Such as if someone said a very popular food was poisonous, but someone else said it wasn't, people might believe the latter person's idea, as they don't want the other to be true possibly. It can also possibly have the reverse effect of the person with the other idea being discredited and/or disliked. If the great think is known for being a great thinker, people might then think anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong and possibly even foolish or something. It also may lead to it being harder for people to realize when the great thinker is wrong because they might have already thought of how they must be right and started thinking that the other was clearly wrong because of that, which might dissuade them from realizing they were actually wrong and that the great thinker had made the mistake. This may also apply if both are correct, but people think the great thinker is *more* correct.
