Same old song?

 

Some people say the song and dance of the believer is stagnant, short-sighted, out-dated, and boring. To this I say: really?  Others ignorantly assume christianity is a glorified pep rally, playing the same old song and stale as cardboard. Well, let me tell ya.

The same song that is mocked has endless notes, it is music that fills the ears and heart tailored to each person with the same truth, is sweeter than a field of  songbirds, and is music which can only be scored on a contrite and broken spirit.  This song cannot be heard by the proud.

The song of the Creator resides in the hearts of His orchestra. His music is an accord, it is an agreement, it is a symphony of beauty and truth, knowledge and wisdom, and it is clear as a bell to the mind and soul, yes, clear as a trumpet.

When Kevin Costner danced with wolves, he recognized a song greater than his own. Granted, he was not singing the glories of  the Lord, yet he knew in his heart there was one greater.

Believers instinctively bow to the chief Maestro, and hear words of grace and mercy which in turn tunes a heart to naturally sing His praise.

The song of the redeemed was penned with the notes from Golgotha’s hill, a song in which I suppose if you had a thousand tongues, you would barely sing His praise. “It is finished’ was the cry, but was also the opening verse for the new song…

They who sing this song share the music with others, unashamedly and willfully. To some it is music in their ears, to others it is cold and lifeless. To some it is a savor of life, to others a savor of death. Its a strange thing really, two people ‘hearing’ the same song, but one cannot hear. The difference?  It is simply how the heart interprets the notes.

Creation, redemption, justification, propitiation, sanctification, glorification: can you hear the music?

 

Then again, it’s just the (ahem, excuse me)  same old song………….or is it?

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Exhortation and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to Same old song?

  1. Wally Fry says:

    Psalm 96 comes to mind….sing a new song. Awesome ColorStorm as usual.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. tildeb says:

    Whereas you assume the song is supposed to glorify the composer, any composer worthy of the name knows perfectly well it’s success only rests if it performer and listener can communicate together.

    In this sense, the Christian doctrine is music only to the ears of those who already believe it is beautiful by fiat rather than the unpleasant boombox cacophony of unsophisticated rhythms and disjointed notes the trained ear is subjected to.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Tildeb-

      I really appreciate you looking at this short post, Hopefully you were able to read the whole thing.

      One of the last lines addresses your observations:

      ‘Its how the heart interprets the notes.’

      Like

  3. Yep, I’ll take that “golden oldie” every time until the day I die and God gives me a new song at the throne – Hallelujah!!

    Liked by 3 people

  4. “And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • ColorStorm says:

      I recall seeing this quote. Is it yours?

      Its pretty darn good, wherever it came from.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It’s actually from Nietzsche. What irony! I almost feel bad for quoting an atheist… but I think it’s funny that he would author a quote that so accurately defines the God whose joy and love we know from experience, whatever meaning he originally meant for it. The Lord works in mysterious ways…
        Peace.

        Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Nietzsche also wrote (“Thus Spake Zarathustra”), “This god whom I created was man-made and madness, like all gods!

          Like

        • True. And I realize that he obviously wasn’t talking about Christianity (or any other religion) in the quote about dancing. I do however think it’s interesting that the quote applies so perfectly to it. I enjoy the odd Nietzsche quote to be honest: “Without music, life would be a mistake”, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how”. While I’ve never read any of his books (and totally just stole those quotes off of Goodreads), he strikes me as a bit of a lunatic. But a clever lunatic. Truth is no one’s monopoly, that’s for sure.
          Peace.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          …he strikes me as a bit of a lunatic. But a clever lunatic.” – Interesting observation, in light of the fact that he spent the last 10-12 years of his life in an asylum, but it is still undetermined as to whether he was actually insane, or feigning it to escape the world – which, honestly, strikes me as a rather insane thing to do, ergo, creating a paradox.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Hmm… now that I did not know. I like the paradox. 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

      • Another thing I must mention…
        By crazy random happenstance (aka Providence… aka the Holy Spirit) I was organizing my choir music today and stumbled across a piece which bore this epigraph: “Ye who dance not know not what we are knowing” –The Apocryphal Acts of John. So it seems John said it first, with different words.
        And I thought it was funny and a little more than coincidental that while looking up more Nietzsche quotes, I saw this one: “I would believe only in a God that knows how to dance”. The piece of music in question happened to be “Lord of the Dance”. 😀
        And for today’s achievement, I now know how to spell Nietzsche correctly…

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          You just won my ‘post of the day comment.’

          Doesn’t get u anything, but a nod of thanks and a return smile. Awesome point about the ‘dance’ by the Creator.

          Michael Flatley eh? Nice.

          I too, try to get spelling correct; yours was a tough one, but u own it for life now.

          Tkx a lot for your value here.

          Like

        • 😀 Thanks! nods back Hopefully I won’t ever forget…

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I now know how to spell Nietzsche correctly…” – You’re ahead of me in that regard – I have discovered that with both a degree in English and one in Education, there are still a handful of words that, no matter how often I write them, I still misspell them each and every time – Nietzsche (he copied and pasted) is one of those. All hail the great god, SpellCheck!

          Like

        • Yay for SpellCheck indeed! Ugh… I know. Don’t ever ask me to write anything about calendars. It’s gonna be calandar every other sentence.

          Like

    • David says:

      Nietzsche would seem to be an odd source to use for quote about Christian belief, since if Nietzsche had actually said this, one could be pretty certain that he didn’t have conservative Christians in mind when he said it. Surely, Nietzsche would have concluded that the Christians were dancing to music that actually, really did not exist. I do not know what Nietzsche would have concluded about the sanity of the Christian dancers.

      However, I don’t think that we have worry about what Nietzsche meant by this quote, because apparently, he never said “And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” I went looking for the source of the quote, because I was curious about the context. What I found was that Nietzsche apparently never said the words that have been attributed to him. In most cases, this would be a problem, but I have learned that at this site, fiction and non-fiction are one and the same. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, so long as it sounds good and makes one feel better. To use another cliche, don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Oh, David – you’re making little Milo cry –!

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          You missed the point again arcH-

          It never was about Milo…..his home run brought out the unbelief in another. Dontcha get it?

          It had to do HE who offended a little one….the onus was on the skeptic.

          You know ‘take heed that YE offend not one of these little ones..’

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Fiction is fiction, which includes your quotation.

          Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        David:

        I’m sure Louis will address your concern, but He uses a very good reference about the ‘music’ and ‘dance’ which I understood, and greatly appreciated.

        The German has made similar remarks about mental institutions.

        But you would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?

        Like

      • I know… I’m not actually sure what he would have had in mind. But then, he also said God was dead, which for him might have been cause to dance.

        But then it turns out that he probably never said it! Hmm… oh well. Whoever came up with it was decidedly clever though. Quotes are tricky like that sometimes. Good stories are the thing, ain’t they? Pesky old Truth…
        Peace.

        Liked by 1 person

    • David says:

      “But you would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?”

      I agree that a mistaken attribution is a minor thing, but what’s interesting here is how you, ColorStorm, respond when an error is pointed out.

      I deal with “camels”, too, but what’s nice here is that even you can’t deny that there’s a (minor) error here.

      And if you like quotes about hearing music that others can’t hear…

      “Back of his smile, under his word,
      Sweeney heard music that nobody heard.”

      -Stephen Sondheim (hope that’s correct!)

      Something the insane are actually insane.

      Like

    • David says:

      Ooops. I meant…

      SomeTIMES the insane are actually insane.

      Like

    • David says:

      “Sweeney Todd was undeniably insane…But he was one person, not 2 billion.”

      So, you are suggesting that 2 billion people couldn’t be dancing to to music that isn’t really there? It’s the number of dancers which determines whether or not the dancers are sane or whether or not the tune that they are dancing to is real?

      Like

  5. archaeopteryx1 says:

    It is simply how the heart interprets the notes.” – The heart is a pump for our plumbing system, incapable of interpreting anything.

    I sent a young Christian girl over here this afternoon, to check out your nonsense – she came back saying, “This is why I blog, to let everyone know we’re not all like that.” Great going!

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      That’s interesting arcH-

      She denies a creator? So it would seem anybody who believes that God spoke the universe into existence is delusional, yet, you found a new affection.

      I’m happy for ya, but its somewhat amusing. You have one person who doesn’t ‘like’ me. I always thought there were at least two.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Oh, I’m sure they are legion, but I haven’t sent them over because I didn’t want to artificially inflate your stats.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        She denies a creator?” – I didn’t say that, now you’re making stuff, much like poor little Milo – she simply disavows any association with the kind of nonsense you espouse.

        Like

  6. Terri says:

    Reblogged this on A Story By Me and commented:
    I thought this was a lovely post. I am not sure if its because I used to be a nonbeliever or what but I have to say once I gave my life to Jesus the song was never ever stagnant, short sighted, out of date or boring. The song has been fresh and fun with new and exciting verses being added each new day.
    Enjoy….

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Terri says:

    I thought this was a lovely post. I am not sure if its because I used to be a nonbeliever or what but I have to say once I gave my life to Jesus the song was never ever stagnant, short sighted, out of date or boring. The song has been fresh and fun with new and exciting verses being added each new day.
    I don’t reblog often but I just had to reblog this one, I hope I did it right. Also Merry Christmas and Happy New year to you!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. ColorStorm says:

    Arkenaten

    (CS added note: The above comment was a reply to WF remark about borrowing inspiration. His comment is clear when understood in context)

    Yes, of course you would find a dark motive in my observation.

    There is NOTHING untoward, the remark was guileless, but here you are SINGING YOUR SAME OLD SONG to borrow from my title here, and now I must be cheating to trade on my second hand statement.

    You may try, but you cannot lay a snare. But thanks for reading, and by the way, is there anything here in which you find daylight?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wally Fry says:

      Yeah…to draw a link between that comment about cheating and a long history of it…that’s kind of reaching LOL…all in all it was a pretty innocent statement….sheesh. Surely, not every single motivation by Christians is rooted in evil and ulterior motives there Arch.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        My reply to CS applies to you, too, Wall-E – now the two of you admit your mistake, and lets move on —

        Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Arch…my bad (putting on glasses)…wrong addressee…comment stands. Lol.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          You responded to a comment by Ark, blaming me for it – if anyone embarrassed themselves, it was you and your yes-man.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Yes man? That’s funny….here’s the bad news Arch….I’m not anybody’s yes man..you may think I am a nut, but I am my own nut if true. Wait…..that’s not true; I am actually somebody’s yes man…want to guess who’s? Yes…you got it…The One True God.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Odin?

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          Arch…you know to argue about God’s name was not my point..sheesh. Call Him what you want. Try these if you want: Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace…they all work well.

          My point was, I am nobody’s yes man. I reach my own conclusions. Actually, I try to reach God’s conclusions. Capische?

          Why must this always descend to ridicule and insults?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          If it weren’t for CS coming to atheist blogs with his ridicule and insults, I wouldn’t even know this blog existed.

          Like

        • Wally Fry says:

          That really didn’t address the question…that’s like saying Joe made me mad..so I’m gonna smack Harry.

          And, I have seem comments by ColorStorm on other blogs..and neither those or the comments of other Christian Bloggers generally reach the same level of venom as what I have seen here..and on my Blog. Yes…some of us are plain mean…sadly so..but for the most part..not so much.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Its easy to get u two confused, it is a perpetual harassment.(arch-arke)

          You are right though, it was not meant for you. Can you please try to find some thing pure. You can do it.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          On YOUR blog???!!

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Just out of curiosity archaeopteryx1, (thats better)

          Is there a substantial difference between the two of you, that would not allow u the best of friendships, in belief and practice?

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Do you mean between the Ark and me? Yeah – he’s funny looking –!

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          While I’m here, you believe in your friend The Ark, having not seen, but you have a problem with the Ark of Noah also not having seen……….Hmmmm

          Goes to the post yes, Same old song? In this instance, it is the song of deafness, not able to hear the word of God 😉

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          you believe in your friend The Ark, having not seen, but you have a problem with the Ark of Noah also not having seen……….Hmmmm

          No “Hmmmm” about it – I have evidence that a WP commenter exists, who calls himself Arkenaten I have absolutely NO evidence that a global flood ever occurred, and ample evidence that one did not.

          1. There is evidence that an actual flood occurred in Mesopotamia in 2900 BCE – 300 years prior to the time biblical scholars tell us the biblical flood took place – when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks to a height of 15 cubits (22.5 ft), the same 15 cubits the Bible says a global flood exceeded the height of the highest mountains.
          2. There is evidence that an actual, historical person, King Ziusudra, escaped the flood on a boat (a trading barge, loaded with cotton, cattle and beer).
          3. There is “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” written 200 years prior to the biblical flood date – a fictional dramatization of the Mesopotamian flood story of a century earlier, which using some of the EXACT terminology the Bible borrowed from that story to describe “Noah’s” experiences.
          4. There is evidence from the National Geological Survey that there is not enough water in, on, under, or above the planet to cover even tiny Mt. Ararat with water, much less Everest.
          5. There is the common-sense knowledge that there would be no one floating around out there in water-wings, to report the depth of the water globally.
          6. There is evidence that an ark full of animals (I’ve done the math) would have produced enough methane gas to have suffocated every living thing aboard.
          7. There is the common-sense knowledge that no plants, except for aquatic ones, could possibly have survived a year’s submersion.
          8. There’s the common-sense knowledge that animals from all over the planet could not possibly have traversed the distance from their natural habitats to Mesopotamia.
          9. And there is actual, physical evidence that archaeologists, excavating in Egypt, roughly a thousand miles from Mesopotamia, having excavated to a depth a full thousand years before the “flood” allegedly occurred, have found no evidence of silt from any such event.

          And that’s just for starters – so yes, I’ll believe in the Ark LONG before I’ll believe in the “ark” – but I still speculate that the former is funny-looking.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          ArcH1

          You work way too hard for the side of unbelief.

          But happy holidays anyway

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          Isn’t respecting what’s true worth some effort?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Isn’t respecting what’s true worth some effort?

          I would say Tildeb its worth ALL the effort. Perhaps you will examine the claims of scripture with the same zeal, unaided by my or any body elses opinion.

          The results may surprise you.
          happy holidays btw

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Perhaps you will examine the claims of scripture with the same zeal” – What? Talking snakes and donkeys? I’ve done that already, didn’t take a study grant.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sigh arch1

          Even the talking parrot put that lame accusation to bed. Talking donkey? Easy.

          You could have at least mentioned the ‘iron head’ that floated.

          Staying consistent with the post?? Same old tune, but its a sword that cuts both ways, but the song is sweet to an appreciating ear.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          What makes you think I haven’t?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          You work way too hard for the side of unbelief.” – Well, ONE of us should come up with some actual evidence to support our claims, and it clearly isn’t going to be you – unless you count little Milo —

          Hope you had a good Winter Solstice, the REAL reason for the season – today has two more minutes of daylight than yesterday! Time to do my happy dance!

          Like

    • Arkenaten says:

      Christians, as do all the religiously brainwashed, whitewash
      their religions thus ensuring they’re palatable and holier-than thou, whiter than white pure.
      Things they would actively scoff at or revile or even become physically sick over were it not for the label ”scripture” they so blithely view through the thickest rose-tinted glasses while damning to eternity all those that do not concur with their willfully ignorant bronze age worldview.
      It is no wonder that many deconvertees come to feel ashamed of what they formerly believed and once tried to force on others.
      Maybe one day you too will become truly enlightened and see what you believe for what it really is: the worst form of moral corruption.

      Daylight? Surely you jest?

      Happy xmas.

      Like

  9. ColorStorm says:

    Arken-

    I’m giving u a chance to repost this where it belongs, as a response to Wally’s comment, in CONTEXT; others can then judge for themselves as to your observation.

    If u do not care too, that’s fine, but this ‘stand alone’ comment by yours has nothing to do with my post, but EVERYTHING to do with the character of another poster.

    I will then take down both yours and mine here, as they serve no purpose.

    Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        arkenaten-

        Yes, feel free to repost it exactly as written, in one hour i will take down the first one, as u must agree, it has no relevance nor context-

        I have no problem with your opinion, as long as it addresses the correct comment

        (post it under Wally’s remark about ‘cheating’

        Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          It has every relevance to the comment, which was what I directed it at.
          You christians are ever willing to trash others’ worldview yet your own piss willy beliefs just cannot stand up to scrutiny, can they?
          If there was any truth to what you vacuously prattle on about it would have been revealed by now, bit all we have is fallacious text espoused by sorry individuals who have little integrity or no true understanding or integrity when asked to demonstrate this diatribe.

          Like

  10. David says:

    “The results may surprise you.”

    They did. After studying the claims of scriptures, I found that couldn’t believe them anymore. Given that I went to church every Sunday until my early 20s, that surprised me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      That’s an interesting observation you make, and you are not alone. Many people ‘could not believe them…’ as opposed to ‘would not…’ due to its veracity.

      Go ahead and choose not to believe, but please do not say the scriptures are not true.

      I dare you to find one verse, one word that is not true; sure you will find innuendos, mis-interpretations, but produce one thing in scripture out of place or that is an error.

      In your re-search, you may hear a ‘new’ song.

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        I dare you to find one verse, one word that is not true; sure you will find innuendos, mis-interpretations, but produce one thing in scripture out of place or that is an error.

        Here ya go: “In the beginning, God

        Like

      • tildeb says:

        Off the top of my head, the different orders of creation. Matthew and Luke don’t agree on Jesus’ genealogy, Leviticus thinks rabbits chew their cud, Matthew and Mark disagree on how many times the cock crowed, and the confusing accounts by many about the tomb, who was there when, what happened, and in what order. The contradictions, factually incorrect claims, untrue statements, historical inaccuracies, and quite a bit of confusion captured by scripture of the same events demonstrates that the text as a whole is fully man made. Or, if the compilation was inspired by some god, it’s too bad a little bit of effort wasn’t made to clarify things… like telling us the exodus was really just a metaphor…

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Tild-

          You put a little thought into this response, i appreciate it. ALL your concerns can and have been met, I would like to just touch on the most difficult-

          The hare-

          I have a friend that raises hares, and this discussion came up 20 years ago. While they do not have the stomachs of cows, the essence of ‘chewing the cud’ is simply to bring up again that which was swallowed, which is exactly what hares do when they eat.

          Apparently, the first pass goes through, and is then re-eaten to be properly digested. Fascinating really, and it is undeniable..

          I know there are sites that try to prove the bible is a fable because it is asserted rabbits ‘do not chew the cud,’ but observation and history proves that Leviticus is exactly correct. After all, the Creator designed the hare.

          If the hare chews the cud, perhaps everything else in scripture is true also; we just lack understanding, which is always the case..

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          No, CS, there is no cud to chew and there is a very particular word not used in Leviticus for re-eating what passes through. This is telling…

          The rabbit (or ‘hare’ if you prefer) regurgitates nothing and so there’s no cud to chew. You’ve been fed a line and bought it hook, line, and sinker not because it’s accurate but because it aligns with your beliefs. This is a method believers use all the time guaranteed to fool one’s self and that is exactly what you’ve done in this case in order to maintain the fiction – for that is what it is – that bible is somehow perfect and without errors. It’s full of errors. Just ask any biblical scholar.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Tild-

          That argument is age old, and has long been dismissed, He who made the animals knows the digestive process.

          Look at the other research Tild, Its there for the taking.

          Are you forgetting the person who actually RAISES them? I would think that he, as being proficient in animal husbandry, may have an edge.

          Not to forget that scripture agrees with him.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Not a trace of evidence in that entire comment, CS.

          Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      “If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood, or persuaded of afterward, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it…the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”
      — William Kingdon Clifford —

      Like

  11. David says:

    “I dare you to find one verse, one word that is not true; sure you will find innuendos, mis-interpretations, but produce one thing in scripture out of place or that is an error.”

    Does the Bible say that the entire planet was covered with water approximately 4500 years ago? If so, for reason archaeopteryx1has already given (as well as countless additional evidence), then there are errors on the Bible.

    Now, I don’t expect you to accept this. You’re absolutely committed to an absolute belief that the Bible is absolutely true and perfect in every respect. Same for your version of God. So, the game is over before it’s played. Prior interactions with you have made this clear to me.

    However, I didn’t want you to think that I wouldn’t respond to an “I dare you,” and in the end, I still find this game moderately interesting, at least for a little while.

    Like

  12. Arkenaten says:

    I dare you to find one verse, one word that is not true; sure you will find innuendos, mis-interpretations, but produce one thing in scripture out of place or that is an error.”

    Only an indoctrinated halfwit would even utter such a ridiculous challenge.

    The writer of Matthew’s plagiarized virgin birth prophecy from Isaiah 7:14.

    Game set and match, hotshot.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Ark-

      I’ve seen your repeat comments on your alleged assertion of a possible fraud in scripture.

      There is a scrapheap of old hammers over 2,000 years old having the same label: ‘Mt 7.14 mistranslation.’ Add yours to the pile. .

      Matthew did not come up with the idea to write ‘virgin,’ your issue is with God himself.

      ‘Mockers………..’

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        Not with any god, but the corrupt arseholes who put the text together.
        And the ignoramuses who continue to han
        g on to this moldy chestnut.

        There is no ‘alleged’. Even if the word were correct ( which it patently is not) the prophecy was directed at King Ahaz and not some made up, yet to be born Jewish kid.

        You have not the knowledge or intellectual capacity to even begin to explain this piece of nonsense away.
        This is what religious indoctrination is all about and your only response is to ridicule the answer which simply makes you look like a plonker.
        And for the record, even the Catholic Church acknowledge that this piece of fiction is not to be taken literally.

        Want a link?

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          this piece of fiction is not to be taken literally.” –

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Hey arK– here’s your winter solstice thought for the day

          Which was harder for God:

          To soften the womb of a barren old woman (Elisabeth) so she could give birth to the greatest prophet
          born of women? (the baptist)

          To hang the moon in the heavens to light the earth at night?

          or, to prepare the womb of a young woman, the virgin named Mary, so she could birth the son of God? (Luke 1.27) Take your time.

          Oh, by the way, both women were visited by He who stands in the presence of God (Gabriel) whose word was an oath from heaven.

          Go ahead and mock Zacharias, Elisabeth, Joseph, Mary, John, Gabriel, God, Christ, call into question the purpose of eternity, call the word of God a fraud, as others greater than you have tried; and they are dead, and God is still God, and His word has lost nothing.

          And if you are interested, take a look when the Lord went into the synagogue and stood up for to read, and STOPPED at a comma, as a fulfillment of scripture.

          You can learn something quite remarkable if you are interested.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Hey arK– here’s your winter solstice thought for the day

          I’ll be SO glad when you finally (if ever) get smart enough to learn which of us is which. You addressed this to Ark, yet I’M the one who mentioned the Winter Solstice, yet you seem to expect people to look to you for wisdom – don’t you think you should get some before you start dispensing it?

          others greater than you have tried; and they are dead” – better to be dead, than like your god, to never have existed.

          if you are interested, take a look when the Lord went into the synagogue and stood up for to read, and STOPPED at a comma, as a fulfillment of scripture.

          Aramaic, which replaced Hebrew as the language of the Jews, following the Babylonian captivity, would have been the language Yeshua used, if he ever existed – Aramaic didn’t use commas. Good try, if you’re addressing those with less knowledge than yourself.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Actually archx1

          I had it right this time, just expressing good will that’s all.

          Yea, the idea of the comma is just a pause and not used at the time, but the Lord made note of a change in truth which was remarkable really; there is a 2,000 plus year lapse in fulfillment in one verse.

          This shows a careful reading which is critical to a right understanding.

          As to wisdom? yes, it has many fathers from many places, but the very best is from God downward.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          …but the Lord made note of a change in truth” – Evidence, please —

          I found it amusing, in Peter Barnes’ drama, “The Ruling Class,” which features a character who believes he is god. The man is asked how he knows he is god. He replies, “Simple. When I pray to him, I find I am talking to myself.”

          It would seem that all who pray, are god. Have you talked to yourself today?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          This is your ‘evidence’ archx1

          And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

          And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

          ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

          To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

          And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

          And he began to say unto them, This day is THIS scripture fulfilled in your ears.’

          Now the comma.

          WHAT was acceptable was NOT what followed in the same scripture. Remarkable really, and proves the utter importance of reading with understanding.

          In this text, is a 2,000 year plus pause in fulfillment. In between is this amazing thing called the age of grace.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I have not only no idea what you just said, I have no idea what you’re TRYING to say – do you?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          May I suggest you look at the scripture in question, since u asked for evidence, and see just what escapes you.

          It is clear as a bell, and it more than answers your question. It seems archx1, that u ask a question, then do not accept the answer, than accuse me of being ambiguous.

          Hint: Luke 4

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          It seems archx1, that u ask a question, then do not accept the answer, than accuse me of being ambiguous.

          No, I asked for evidence, and you gave me words written by 2000-year old anonymous men, about whose veracity we know nothing, and who never met the Yeshua they write about – hardly evidence.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          You continually to evade every issue addressed and merely dredge up scripture? Even William Lane Craig is not so much an imbecile.
          Are you that intellectually stunted that you are unable to face the facts?
          I would pity you if you were worth pitying.

          You truly are the personification of
          A hypocrite and an ignoramus.

          You would probably embarrass Ken Ham.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          ArK-

          Greater men have insulted One far greater.

          ———-And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?—————–

          Thank you for the compliment.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Arkenaten says:

          Thank you for so aptly proving the point.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Hey ark-

          He who sits in the heavens is aware of your perpetual insults, crass and insolence, yet still offers grace to you.

          The Lord knows all about your unbelief and rebellion, and does nothing but offer more grace. You may want to seriously consider His claims.

          The Creator of the sparrow is very patient, but the sands of time must expire.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          It is a continuing source of bafflement the lengths you will go to convince others how much of a Dickhead you are.
          Trust me, you don’t have to try so hard – we already know.

          I am curious though. What was the nature of your problem that caused you to turn to this make beleive god for salvation/forgiveness? Drugs, porn, alcohol. Were you a violent person? Corrupt, criminal?
          Unless you have been this way since childhood – and frankly, you don’t sound like it

          I’m just curious, that’s all. Most reborns come from a similar background of iniquity. What was yours?

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          The Creator of the sparrow is very patient, but the sands of time must expire.

          Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not!

          We ARE making up nonsensical quotations, are we not –?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Ok I’ll put in words that aren’t so strange:

          God, who made all that is, including man and bird, has placed a premium on man above that of the sparrow.

          And while the sparrow is provided for, man is doubly blessed, yet scoffs his maker, thus stating time is running out, and grace will in fact come to a close.

          Ahem, similar as it was in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.

          Like

    • David says:

      “Ok I’ll put in words that aren’t so strange:”

      Short version: God says love me or I’ll torture you for all eternity.

      Like

    • David says:

      God treats sparrows much better than humans. God likes sparrows.

      Like

  13. David says:

    “So u will concede that the hare chews the cud correct, and that God’s word is sure, in this regard?”

    I don’t believe that I’m the one who brought up the hares, although now that you mention it, I haven’t been able to find any biology or science websites that confirm that hares routinely regurgitate their food and chew it. Answers in Genesis does not count as a science site.

    I know that lagomorphs do most of their digesting in the hindgut with the aid of microbes in a hindgut cecal pouch, and so cud-chewing would be of little value (by contrast, cows harbor microbes in the foregut, so cud-chewing is much more beneficial to cows than to hindgut digesters). I also know that to take advantage of hind gut digestion, lagomorphs eat their own feces; this would be much less necessary if foregut digestion was more effecient. Finally, I did find one vet surgery web site that said that rabbits do NOT regurgitate, and so it wasn’t necessary for rabbit owners to withhold food prior to surgery.

    However, again, I did not bring up the cud issue, because this is a good example of how the true believer can torture language to make it all better. So, Global Flood, then?

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      David said:

      ————Off the top of my head, the different orders of creation. Matthew and Luke don’t agree on Jesus’ genealogy, Leviticus thinks rabbits chew their cud, Matthew and Mark disagree on how many times the cock crowed————————–etc.

      I don’t bring this up to embarrass, but we want to be fair here, you did bring up the hare to support your allegations of ‘errors in scripture.’

      I then proved they ‘do’ chew the cud. True science always affirms scripture.

      Other than that, its all good.

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        True science always affirms scripture.” – So if science doesn’t affirm scripture, it’s not “true” science, is that what you’re saying? THAT sure keeps the cognitive dissonance away, doesn’t it?

        Like

  14. David says:

    “David said:

    ————Off the top of my head, —–etc.”

    Umm, I think that this was tildeb’s comment, not mine. You’ve mixed up your commenter again.

    “I don’t bring this up to embarrass, but we want to be fair here, you did bring up the hare to support your allegations of ‘errors in scripture.’”

    I’m not the one who should be embarrassed. I didn’t bring up the hare. I brought up the Flood and only the Flood.

    “I then proved they ‘do’ chew the cud. True science always affirms scripture.”

    Well, I’m not sure that you did prove this. As I said, I couldn’t find any biology or science sites that confirmed this, and it does seem to be odd behavior for a hindgut digester. Could be that hares regularly regurgitate and chew the regurgitated material, but I couldn’t find a reference to confirm this.

    Like

  15. Wally Fry says:

    Hey ColorStorm. .been out most all day. You have a wonderful Christmas.

    You other gentleman. .Arch….Ark…Tildeb. ..David…yall have one too

    Like

  16. Wally Fry says:

    Maybe we should call a Christmas truce…bury all of the dead….and recommence hostilities later lol

    Like

  17. archaeopteryx1 says:

    All written by men who never met him, much like all of the books of “Tarzan,” written by a man who had never been to Africa.

    Like

  18. David says:

    Well, I didn’t raise the hare question, and I really don’t want to go down any rabbit holes here (or split any hares), but…just so that I completely and totally understand you, CS, are you saying that feces eating is a type of cud chewing? Does copraphagy = rumination? That’s my only question here. Just curious about what you think cud chewing is.

    Now, after Christmas…maybe you’d like to address the Flood?

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      David-

      The Israelites were specific in their dietary laws, and they certainly knew the difference between clean and unclean.

      It seems the nourishing properties of the hare are extremely unique and is done in a manner whereby the ‘waste’ is not quite waste…hence the re-chewing.

      For what its worth, the fella I know has this discussion all the time with farmers, and scripture always wins the day.

      The better question is: why does the hare eat like this, and not like others.

      Like

      • David says:

        Once again, I’ve asked a plain, simple, straight-forward question that only required a one word answer (yes or no), and you’ve given me a multi-paragraph answer that, in the end, is not quite entirely clear. When it takes as many words to answer a simple question as it’s taken here, it leads me to believe that you understand, deep down, that something isn’t quite, umm, kosher here. (So, what is “waste,’ anyway? What counts as waste and what doesn’t?)

        Anyway, here’s what I think you said, and please correct me if I’m wrong. You are saying that feces-eating counts as cud-chewing, and furthermore, this is “clean”, not “unclean.” Is this correct? Well, I must say that I’ve learned something this fine Christmas Day.

        This, of course, is why I didn’t go hopping down the bunny trail in the first place. I suspected that your answer would involved practicing enhanced interrogation techniques on the ancient written word. Well, we shall see how this works out with respect to a global flood.

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          David-

          Dogs return to their vomit-
          Dogs eat their feces

          hares chew their cud according to the biblical definition, other than that…………..

          Talk to a person who raises hares, and leave the internet out of your mind making.

          But happy holidays too

          Like

        • David says:

          Ok, so…

          Cows eat regurgitated material, and this is chewing the cud

          Hares eat fecal material, and this is chewing the cud.

          Dogs eat regurgitated material AND fecal material…but this isn’t chewing the cud? Many non-hare, non-rabbit species engage in copraphagy, but this isn’t chewing the cud?

          Wow. Honestly, I’m more confused then ever. We really need to move on to the Flood.

          Like

        • tildeb says:

          My veterinarian neighbour assures me that eating the cud requires regurgitated material (a stomach thing) whereas rabbits re-eat their pellets (droppings thing). Not a tomato-tomawto kind of thing by any stretch of the imagination but more along the lines of a tomato-bicycle kind of thing.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Aw heck, Tild-
          The Jews who were masters of dietary laws didn’t know anything did they.

          It was certainly obvious to them what ‘chewing the cud meant,’ so I’m guessing your vet friend is behind the times, and my friend who actually raises Hares is correct.

          Then again, He who made the Vet and the Hare is probably correct Yeah, I’m going with him.

          But happy holidays, and God’s word is always, always light years ahead.

          Liked by 1 person

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Talk to a person who raises hares, and leave the internet out of your mind making.

          Would a veterinarian actually have to RAISE hares, in order to know? Would a pediatrician have to RAISE children to know about how they should operate, and thus treat them?

          Like

        • David says:

          tildeb,

          Ok, as I understand it, this is very simple.

          If a hare eats feces, then the feces is a cud.

          If a dog eats feces, then the feces is feces.

          Any definition of “cud” that limits the term to “the food brought up into the mouth by a ruminating animal from its first stomach to be chewed again” is wrong.

          See? Clear as mud.

          Oh, and also everything the Bible is perfect and correct.

          Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          By George, I think he’s got it – not!

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Final word to whosoever may be interested-

          The name of this post is ‘same old song?’ Here is a reminder:

          ————————The same song that is mocked has endless notes, it is music that fills the ears and heart tailored to each person with the same truth, is sweeter than a field of songbirds, and is music which can only be scored on a contrite and broken spirit. This song cannot be heard by the proud.————————

          Now back to our regular programming.

          It may be worthwhile to simply understand what God thinks ‘chewing the cud ‘ means, and to help with a clue, I submit it has everything to do with what animals eat, and how it is digested. It is really easy.

          If you think cow manure is ‘feces,’ such as dog feces, (who return to their vomit, (ahem, written how many thousands of years ago?) try spreading ‘dog manure’ on a farmers field. You will be laughed off the reservation.

          In the same manner, hare ‘feces’ is obviously not dog feces. What do the cow and hare eat? Chewing the cud? Yeah, and and let the digestive process prove God is true.

          Without the scriptures, true, the song is not sweet to the ear, and plays like a warped 45. disc. But that field of songbirds………………..

          Liked by 1 person

        • David says:

          Dog manure will work fine in a field. So will human poop. Farmers use what’s available in large volume, and that’s going to make it problematic to use dog poop. Doesn’t mean that it’s not nutritious or is not beneficial to crops. So what’s your point?

          Poop is poop. Hares eat poop, dogs eat poop, lots of non-lagomorphs eat poop. All poop has some nutritional value, both to the poop-eater and to crops in the field. No reason to call one “cud,” except for blind faith.

          But I realize that this argument is futile, so…the Flood?

          Like

        • David says:

          Ah, ha! I see we have the Flood at a new post.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Of course. dontcha think it would be a fish out of water……………….staying here?
          😉 For your reading enjoyment

          Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      Now, after Christmas…maybe you’d like to address the Flood?” – Oh, I would SO love that! Maybe he could bring some evidence with him, as so far, he has never offered anything but the Bible as evidence for ANYthing. But naah, that would require a miracle —

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        But then evidence doesn’t exactly grow on trees, does it? Knowledge of good and evil, sure, but evidence, not so much. BTW, I would LOVE to read his scientific verification that the knowledge of good and evil can be contained in the fruit of a tree —

        Like

  19. David says:

    Ok, so…

    Cows eat regurgitated material, and this is chewing the cud

    Hares eat fecal material, and this is chewing the cud.

    Dogs eat regurgitated material AND fecal material…but this isn’t chewing the cud? Many non-hare, non-rabbit species engage in copraphagy, but this isn’t chewing the cud?

    Wow. Honestly, I’m more confused then ever. We really need to move on to the Flood.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s