Thought for the day

It does not require the mind of an Einstein, a Tesla, a molecular biologist, a heart surgeon,  a carpenter, or a lawyer, to know there is a God.

All one needs is to be alive.

Then again, ask any two year old, as the divine code is imprinted on the conscience. It’s too bad the so-called scientists hide their knowledge of this between their sandwiches of theory and endless detours, which provides no nutrition, for the bread of unbelief is quite stale.

Image result for thought for the day

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
This entry was posted in Thought for the day and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Thought for the day

  1. violetwisp says:

    So what you are saying here is that only stupid people believe in your god? But that scientists, who are aware your god exists, are telling people lies about two-year-olds who all really follow your god? It’s kind of confusing ….

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Hi Violet.

      Nope. Not saying that at all.

      There are believing scientists, believing lawyers, believing carpenters, and they have no more ‘smarts’ than a two year old, who simply judges with his/her eyes in agreement with the conscience.

      But I thought it was rather clear in the first place.

      Liked by 2 people

      • violetwisp says:

        Okay, I don’t think that makes any sense. I’m not sure what two-year-olds you’ve spent time with or how they behaved. It’s mostly about training them what is socially acceptable and what’s not – that’s why some kids hit other kids at that age with no sense of ‘conscience’ (no-one has trained them otherwise), other kids don’t hit at all (they’ve been trained) and others do hit but look concerned (they’ve been trained it’s wrong – or are concerned about the reaction they get). It’s all quite simple – nothing to do with invisible programming!

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Ah V!

          Careful here. You are agreeing with what I’ve been telling you for ages. ‘Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child.’

          But I’m not speaking of behaviour, but of the innate knowledge of God.

          It’s like the mother who breastfeeds her baby after a hard delivery, then months later after mom spends endless hours or no-sleep with junior…….only to hear the first words of the little sprite: ‘Dada………’

          It hurts huh?

          But just to add insult to injury regarding the conscience thing, picture the little tyke with candy bar behind his back, when you ask him if he took the chocolate, with brown oozing down his mouth, he says ‘no,’ meanwhile he knows he is lying through his teeth.

          His own deceit and coverup also proves there is a God, and he knows it. He may argue later, but he knows. As do all people.

          Liked by 2 people

        • violetwisp says:

          “It’s like the mother who breastfeeds her baby after a hard delivery, then months later after mom spends endless hours or no-sleep with junior…….only to hear the first words of the little sprite: ‘Dada………’
          It hurts huh?”

          That’s probably happened to me twice, and I didn’t care at all. Did you know that babies don’t know the difference between themselves and their mother for around seven months? In normal circumstances, the mother is an integral part of the baby – why would she ‘name’ herself?

          As for the child lying – they only do this when they are afraid of the consequences. I can’t think of a time this has happened to me because I don’t punish my children. If they are hungry they ask for food and they are given options of suitable food for that part of the day. If they ask for something that isn’t suitable I explain why. They don’t seem to want to steal things and understand that sweets aren’t great for their tummies. It all depends on the upbringing. I’m sure they will hide things from me as they get older, but that’s a natural part of learning about the world. They need space to make their own mistakes, and think about why certain actions aren’t for the best.

          Like

        • Citizen Tom says:

          @violetwisp

          You seem very concerned about proper behavior. Why? How do you know what is “socially acceptable”? How do you define what is “socially acceptable”? Is it right makes might, or is it might makes right? If it is right makes might, then what is the difference between right and wrong? Who or what decides the issue? Why should a little child ever bother to care?

          Like

        • violetwisp says:

          I find these questions unbelievably blinkered and have to adjust my perspective to that of a Christian who will only view life in terms of intended creation. We live in co-operative societies, much like many other animals. If we had no instinct to love and care for our offspring, we could never have developed as a species to our current form. But as humans we can also move beyond this basic instinct and put ourselves in the position of others (empathy) and care for others. It’s not only more pleasurable for most of us to see other people happy because of this empathy, but it’s also logical, in terms of continuing to thrive in stable, mutually supportive society.

          Can you give me one reason why it would make sense to attack other people? Little children often hit if something they are enjoying playing with is taken by another child – the base instinct of ‘mine’ is important for self-preservation when resources are scarce, but in societies where we reap the benefit of sharing, we teach our children to suppress this instinct for their own good – both in terms of social acceptance and in terms of helping them learn the pleasure we can get from other people’s enjoyment. It still comes back into play when we are feeling threatened – tired, hungry or scared.

          No invisible god in beaming down ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to our silly brains. We have naturally evolved to enjoy social contact, and to understand paths of harm and benefit and adjust our actions accordingly. We can still behave in a way that ultimately not useful (often called ‘sin’ by Christians) if we choose our personal satisfaction in terms of personal pleasure over consideration of other outcomes – such as the suffering of others. And it’s our empathy that makes us feel guilty, or our acknowledgement that we put pleasure above other considerations.

          We each decide the difference between right and wrong based on our understanding of life and the experiences we have. That’s why some people think that women should have the choice to terminate their own pregnancies if they feel it’s best of them and their families – the empathy driven ‘right’ looking at the suffering often caused by continuing with unwanted pregancies; yet other people want to deny women the choice to terminate their pregnancies because they believe it is ‘right’ to force any partially developed human to be born.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          @V,

          You may want to visit CT place too. He dedicated a post to your shortsightedness, and you will have a good discussion over there i’m thinking..

          Like

        • violetwisp says:

          Thanks ColorStorm, I did already and posted the main part back here to keep the thread answered.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Citizen Tom says:

          @violetwisp

          Thank you for the kindness of a reply.

          Are my questions blinkered? Well, that seems to be the case from your point-of-view. Is it difficult to see things from another person’s point-of-view? Yes, and I congratulate you for trying.

          Several years ago I wrote a series of four posts: DO YOU THINK MIGHT MAKE RIGHT? The first one, with links to the others, is here. Pagans were the atheists of antiquity. Because they believed their gods would reward them, pagans sacrificed and gave worship to their gods.

          Those pagans did not know the true God. They knew only the less frightful manlike gods they wanted to exist. The God of Bible doesn’t need anything from us. We can please Him, but we have no hope of manipulating Him.

          Matthew 9:10-13 New King James Version (NKJV)

          10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

          12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

          Are atheists pagans? I suspect it is more accurate to say that to some degree we are all still pagans. However, we hide our worship of idols. Instead we worship what the ancients wanted from their idols: pleasurable sex, lots of valuable stuff, the power of the state, and the glorification of our self.

          You say we live in cooperative societies, much like other animals, suggesting morality is instinctive. For the sake of argument, let’s just concede that statement. Then, what is moral is whatever we can get away with. That is why the ancients lived in stratified societies governed by one primary rule, might makes right. The strong ruled the weak.

          Is caring for others because of empathy logical? Yes, there is not much point in antagonizing someone to the point they will stick a knife in your back. In fact, it is easier to get work out of happy slaves than it is out of sad and bitter slaves.

          So why then would it make sense to attack other people? Ancients soldiers would have laughed at that question. They attacked their neighbors for glory, for land, for property, for slaves, and for excitement. That’s is how the Roman created an empire, and they were quite proud of it. When people rebelled, they just crucified them. Then they were proud of the terror they inspired.

          It seems you think we have advanced (or perhaps evolved) beyond the Romans.

          But as humans we can also move beyond this basic instinct and put ourselves in the position of others (empathy) and care for others…..No invisible god in beaming down ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ to our silly brains. We have naturally evolved to enjoy social contact, and to understand paths of harm and benefit and adjust our actions accordingly.

          What followed Rome? Christian Europe? The Protestant Reformation? The Enlightenment which was relatively successful in England and America and a complete flop in Europe. Do you seriously believe Christianity had nothing to do this advancement?

          What Christianity teaches is that we must love each other. What atheism offers is an empty dream, living in a co-operative society, much like other animals. If you want to live in a society with Christian values, you may as well consider encouraging everyone to become a Christian. Otherwise, you will treat your neighbors according to the following maxim: might makes right.

          We each decide the difference between right and wrong based on our understanding of life and the experiences we have.

          Nothing new about that idea. Where does it lead? It leads to a society where the old, where the maimed, where the young, where the weak of all kinds are destroyed simply because we can destroy them, and it seems most convenient to do so.

          Like

        • violetwisp says:

          “It leads to a society where the old, where the maimed, where the young, where the weak of all kinds are destroyed simply because we can destroy them, and it seems most convenient to do so.”

          Tom, it’s like you don’t understand empathy or logic. We are all young and old at some point in our lives – why would a society that harms ‘us’ at any stage of our lives be logical? Why would we want to see other people suffering? There are some people obviously who don’t consider these things, or who have had unfortunate lives lacking love that leave them devoid of empathy, but most people (see work of the UN, for example) agree broadly on the principles of taking care of each other – independent of religion now gods aren’t required for the gaps.

          Is this Jesus?
          “Rather than being a “necessity,” the act of giving voluntarily in Buddhism is motivated by a recognition that all beings exist in interdependence. The interdependence of all things, combined with an awareness of those less fortunate, inspires compassion. Practicing selflessness in this way is thought to increase one’s own merit and is also an antidote to greed or grasping to possessions or other resources. Giving is an expression of the natural qualities of kindness and compassion.”
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/askanexpert/2015/08/what-does-buddhism-say-about-charity/

          Is this Jesus?
          “Among the roles of the state, embodied in the office of the king, was the social mandate to feed the poor and support religious institutions. Today Hindu temples continue to promote charitable and community activities. Still, the highest praise in Hindu history is not reserved for the generous but for those who regard wealth with indifference and are able, when the proper stage of life arrives, to renounce all their belongings.”

          So stop being absurd and pretending to yourself that all forms of empathy rely on the teachings of Jewish gods. Many religions come to similar conclusions simply because we all recognise we could be in another person’s shoes at any point in our lives, and besides watching suffering is not pleasant.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Violet

          While many ‘religions’ attempt to practice the golden rule, they do so acting in the knowledge that ALL are created in the image of God. The hallmark is written in the conscience, whether one believes it or not.

          Only biblical Christianity defines decidedly how and why the religions of the world fall short. Read all about it, but for God’s sake, at least allow God the courtesy of existing.

          Like

        • Citizen Tom says:

          @violetwisp

          A response? Thank you.

          Are we all devoid of empathy or logic? No, but why do ALL people sin? The world sometime even explodes with violence, does it not?

          Much of what you refer to as empathy or logic the Bible speaks of as the Law. Yet as the Apostle Paul observed in the Book of Romans, even though they wanted to obey the Law, the Jews could not do so.

          In the Book of Romans the Apostle Paul explains much of Christian theology. He explains the Law itself creates something of a problem. Because of the Law we have no doubt that when we break the Law we do wrong. Keep in mind that when Jesus spoke of the two Great Commandments, to love God above all and our neighbor as our self, He quoted the Old Testament. Even before Jesus came the Jews knew the spirit of the Law. Still, they became legalistic in the observance. Why?

          Romans 7:13-20 New King James Version (NKJV)

          13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

          What you may find curious about this portion of the Book of Romans is that Paul does not explain exactly why we cannot stop ourselves from sinning. However, the source of the problem is apparent in other parts of the Bible. Sin stem from arrogant pride.

          What Paul does do in the Book of Romans is explain how Christ Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross saved us. Yes, God’s help is required for us to learn to see beyond our noses. In addition to sacrificing Himself to pay for our sins, Jesus gave us an example. As God made man Jesus humbled Himself to a degree we can only imagine.

          What Christianity teaches differs from other religions in many respects. In fact Christianity differs from Buddhism and Hinduism just about as much as what usually passes for Atheism in this country.

          So what about atheism, the UN, Buddhism, and Hinduism? My object is to advocate Christianity, not to condemn other religions. So I am not going to try methodically poke holes in atheism, the UN, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Let just focus on the most respectable of these religions, Buddhism.

          Buddhism is essentially a form of Atheism. The form of Atheism that Buddhists practice, however, denies materialism. Buddhists seek to achieve nirvana based upon a peculiar form of merit.

          The aim of Buddhist practice is to be rid of the delusion of ego and thus free oneself from the fetters of this mundane world. One who is successful in doing so is said to have overcome the round of rebirths and to have achieved enlightenment. This is the final goal in most Buddhist traditions, though in some cases (particularly though not exclusively in some Pure Land schools in China and Japan) the attainment of an ultimate paradise or a heavenly abode is not clearly distinguished from the attainment of release. (=> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhism)

          To the extent they actually try to practice their religion, I suppose Buddhists are good neighbors. As I mentioned earlier, pride is the driver behind most sins, and I am not familiar with any Buddhist holy warriors trying conquer the infidels. Nevertheless, when I consider the ultimate Buddhist solution for suffering, I see little logical reason for industrious charity. If a Buddhist seriously seeks nirvana, he will not want to produce much or own much. The Buddhist perceives the material world as an entanglement, not a gift from his Creator.

          The Christian, on the other hand, sees Creation as the work of God. Beautiful! Amazing! Full of marvels! Something enjoyed best when shared with those we love.

          Like

      • It was very clear CS—very matter of fact and to the point—no needing to twist and turn looking for other things that’s for sure—that whole if it looks like a duck business

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Wally Fry says:

    Seems pretty clear to me. Good thing there are people to tell you what you meant though

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Pingback: HOW SHOULD WE DECIDE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG? – Citizen Tom

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