Tghuoht fro teh dya

The human mind has the instant ability to perceive things that a red fox may have a little difficulty. It does not take supernatural skill to know that I have a ‘thought for the day.’ I need not supply ‘evidence’ to help you sift through the intentional sarcasm. Enter a past conversation with the purveyors of godlessness.

They ask for ‘proof.’ They ask for ‘evidence’ there is a God, as if their hearts are MY problem. And I say, Enough already! You know there is a God, and you know there are imposters. The Creator of the tree does not compete with the Creator of the sun, moon, or stars. He is all of One. Nature is the greatest evangelist, as the divine imprint is seen from the oceans beneath to the clouds above, and beyond.

This imprint is coded within the mind of man, and any attempt to silence this rather clear voice is immediately rebuked by the conscience. There are no excuses of worth; there is no argument of substance; the paltry cries of ‘I need evidence!’ are dismissed fast and furiously.

And so I ask: WHAT evidence would satisfy a ‘searcher’ that there be One God? Since history is rejected, since the testimony of good men is rejected, since the witness of the stars is rejected, since the exact science of arithmetic is rejected, since the truth of the carpenter’s level is rejected, since the plumb line is rejected, since the life and times of King David is rejected, since the life and times of Solomon is rejected, since the life and times of Daniel, Esther, Mordecai, Herod, Pilate, and Gamaliel are rejected, what could possibly be cited as acceptable ‘evidence’ to a stout heart that God’s word is good, and that He as Creator, can be trusted to supply a true account of His own creation? (Notice I did not even touch on the life and times of Christ, not enough paper)

Out side of life itself, WHAT could possibly suffice?

I’ll tell you what, and I’ll be blunt. Nothing. Not one thing. And to the believer: We know God is good, His word is true, and He can be trusted just as easily to keep the moon in her circuits, as He can to look after the apple of His eye.

To the infidel: Be honest with yourself, and face the screeching music of humanity’s disappointments. God is not on trial. He acts perfectly, all the time. You sitting in judgement of Him is a pathetic display of the unbridled pride in the human heart. The fact that a coyote cannot tie his shoes, and that your neck is stiffer than a giraffe’s, escapes you.

Neither coyote nor giraffe was made in the image of God, and much to your chagrin, they will never evolve to the place where they can build a paper airplane. This fact also escapes you, so you are thus hung by your own intentional blindness. Evidence? Proof? Ha, we got that, it’s called life, but this is not acceptable to you, for you seek not truth, but one more lousy excuse to add to the rusty and useless gripes of history’s proof of a world away from God.

As a bonus thought, you may want to consider how and why you were able to decode the heading in a New York minute. I’ll tell you why…. aw nevermind.

 

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

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

27 Responses to Tghuoht fro teh dya

  1. tildeb says:

    And yet you are not Muslim. You are, in fact, the worst kind of unbeliever, an agent of the devil, a deceiver clothed in a false piety, for the Holy Quran says quite clearly, ““This is the Scripture in which there is no doubt, containing guidance for those who are mindful of God, who believe in the unseen…” (Quran, 2:2-3). Really, CS, Allah sees through your deception and do the real believers in the One True God.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      I’m sorry sir if you make no distinction between your quran and the scriptures.

      God’s word speaks in a way that shows all others as imposters. But of course you know this already.

      Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      As Salvagable observed, Luke 16:19-31 is fairly explicit. No matter what we do we cannot make you believe the evidence.

      Do some believe the evidence? I did and so have many others. I read the Bible, reflected upon what I knew about history, people, the character of Creation, and the empty place in my heart. Then it became as clear as the fact that “Tghuoht fro teh dya” is “Thought for the day” that the Bible is God’s word. The Koran? To anyone who has studied the Bible it is fairly obvious that the Koran is just a corrupt knockoff. However, to study the Bible requires a willingness to see and hear the Word of God.

      Like

      • tildeb says:

        “However, to study the Bible requires a willingness to see and hear the Word of God.”

        No, it doesn’t. It requires study. Honest and unbiased study.

        To see and hear the Word of God in any scripture is a presumption one imports, in this case to the Bible, that actually overrides one’s ability to study the Bible honestly and turns the exercise – the ‘study’ – into nothing more than assuming the conclusion one has already and a priori assumed to be true.

        That’s not study, CT: that’s an exercise in confirmation bias.

        This is why you cannot grasp the fact that I have studied the Bible honestly without doing what you have done: assume the conclusion. This is how I know what you’ve done is the same thing any pious Muslim has done and there is absolutely no difference in method between importing the assumption of the conclusion you already own. The only difference is the object you have previously selected to claim is this One True God before ever cracking any of the Books of the Bible or the Quran or the Pentateuch, and you think that makes all the difference when in fact they are interchangeable ontology while keeping the method of inquiry – the epistemology – identical that then gives the appearance of ‘arriving’ at incompatible ‘conclusions’ for each. That’s how we know nothing contained within any of these scriptures offers us any evidence: because they simply endorse the a priori assumption believers presume is true.

        Like

        • Citizen Tom says:

          @tildeb

          Read what you wrote carefully. The reason Wally Fry laughed is that you basically said you are unwilling to believe. You are just doing what you accuse us of doing. You are rejecting the evidence before you even consider whether or not it is true.

          When I read the Bible, I did not assume the conclusion. I was surprised I did believe. I was then upset I had not read the Bible sooner. Since then, the more I have studied the Bible, the more certain I am that it is true.

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          No, that’s not the meaning at all. And Wally certainly doesn’t know how to grasp comprehension from the written word. He tells me repeatedly it’s all too far above his ability as a simpleton like he is.

          The meaning is to go into study without bias one way or the other. You assign to me non belief as an a priori intransigent position. This is not true. I am quite willing to believe whatever reality arbitrates is most likely to be the case. You insist it is true. Again, that’s you assuming the conclusion you want.

          This is the method of faith and the core problem with the method of faith, to assume the conclusion (without needing any evidence arbitrated by reality to have independent merit) and regardless of compelling evidence against it. That’s why it fails every time to produce knowledge about reality. It doesn’t work, CT. It doesn’t work in the real world and it does not work to grant you any insight into this agency you think of as some god or even me. Faith produces exactly what it is you want to imagine is true in reality and it this projection that comes from you is then protected by you from honest inquiry reality provides.

          Utilizing faith this way is why you’re not a Muslim but, according to the Quran, a non believer condemned to hell for your willful apostasy. Your position and your methodology attempts to justify exactly this biased view not in regards to yourself, of course, but in order to try to impose your wishes about reality on me. The problem is that this assumption is severed from reality and this is what you’re trying to claim is a justifiable source of evidence, evidence severed from reality that you yourself have already rejected when it derives from the Quran but magically turns into evidence when it comes from the Bible.

          I see this as a problem. You don’t even see it so enamored are you by your faith. That’s why faith doesn’t work to describe reality independent of you; it’s really all about you and only you.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          And yet tildeb it is you who assumes the narrative of Genesis cannot be true. It is you who is guilty of bias because you have worshipped at the feet of godlessness, which teaches you that science and scripture are incompatible.

          They are not incompatible, ‘after their kind’ is a truth so obvious that it incriminates false science because a cow cannot give birth to a monkey, and a woman does not birth an elephant.

          Inconvenient truths to be sure, yet the Creator, as well as provable science, put to death once and for all, moanings and groanings against scripture.

          As far as you studying the scriptures? Give me a break. Your conclusions are suspect, and the scriptures are a closed book to people who do not give God the courtesy of existing. Stop embarrassing yourself.

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          Again, you export your belief and then impose it on others with no regard for the truth. This is an ongoing error of assuming the conclusion.

          I believe many things because I think I have compelling reasons based on compelling evidence to do so. Reality is this arbiter. The Bible is no different to me than the Quran or the Pentateuch because to study them requires comparing and contrasting fairly and honestly and disinterestedly in preference. To do otherwise is a clear confirmation bias. Good universities will smack you down very fast for committing this error. And it is an error. This necessary starting neutrality really does not mean a starting position of some refusal to believe – as you and others mistakenly continue to insist. You are factually wrong to continue to believe this error you make is not an error.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          AGAIN, you are guilty of thinking the bible somehow has an equivalence. There is none.

          There is no other accurate depiction of creation, man, the rise and fall and rising again of Israel, the perfect fulfillments of prophecies, the interpretation of dreams, the revelation of the grace of God, the purpose and power of man over animals, things in which you know already.

          No arguments of yours tildeb will ever tarnish the gleam of scripture. We are all telling you the truth.

          Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          No, you’re telling me what you believe is true. What you believe and what is true are not synonyms.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sorry tildeb, it is not true because I believe it; it is true regardless.

          I already told you about the triplet truth tellers of the level, the compass, and the plumbline; pure science, pure truth, all testify to scripture.

          The truth laughs at all attempts to subvert it.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Wally Fry says:

        Tom, seriously. If you expect your comments to be believable, you simply must add several hundred words to them, and repeat most. Use latin, too. LOL.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ColorStorm says:

        ‘Corrupt knockoff.’

        All things true have groupie wannabees. Nice grab tom.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Salvageable says:

    I have taught college classes on Comparative Religions (or World Religions). In the last session before the final, I have asked the students to discuss what the real God would have to do to win over the rest of the world to the true religion. The consensus among the students has been that any sign, no matter how wonderful, would be considered fake by determined unbelievers. The same sign would be interpreted by different religious groups according to their own beliefs and biases. (This according to the students, not to me.) This confirms what Jesus said: if they won’t believe Moses and the prophets, they won’t be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead. J.

    Liked by 2 people

    • tildeb says:

      Oh rubbish. People who do not believe in your god or any god doesn’t make them intransigent skeptics. This is a false dichotomy religious apologists and faitheists like to spread because it seems reasonable. It isn’t. It’s a character slur.

      The issue is one of likelihood. Produce enough compelling evidence to believe something is more likely than not and – Lo and Behold! – a believer is made. What is lacking for non believers today in your god or any gods is exactly the same component behind you not believing in Tlaloc. It’s not some intransigence in your character, Salvageable. It’s a lack of compelling reasons for you to invest likelihood in this belief.

      Like

      • ColorStorm says:

        So tildeb, WHAT evidence would could convince you that God created it all?

        All of it.

        Like

        • tildeb says:

          I’ve answered this before, CS, and you know it: evidence.

          Recall what that means – linking the proffered cause with selected effect – and you’ll understand even if you refuse to accept that my mind is wide open to such a likelihood if reality arbitrates it to be reasonable. This utter lack of evidence is not of my doing. It belongs to reality… and unlike you, I actually respect reality enough to allow it and not my biases and preferences and faith to arbitrate my beliefs about it. That’s not a version of fundamentalism in the religious sense or some determined intransigence on my part to deny and/or doubt anything; it’s what it means to be open to reason, open to possibilities, open to changing my mind. Evidence.

          Like

      • Salvageable says:

        A–I was quoting a small but representative sample, not offering an opinion.
        B–So you are saying that a resurrection from the dead is not sufficient evidence (or that you would be inclined to assume that it was faked)? J.

        Liked by 1 person

        • tildeb says:

          Presuming the conclusion is no way to offer evidence, Salvageable. Presuming the resurrection was true is the conclusion you think you’re ‘reaching’. So the ‘event’ is not evidence of anything else except you presuming the conclusion. And there’s no reason other than granting a faith-based position of a high degree of likelihood that this particular resurrection happened, in which case there’s no reason not to grant exactly the same likelihood to every other claim of a godly resurrections of other greater and lesser gods. And there are thousands… right up to and including this year. Your belief in your presumption is not evidence that this one event actually happened, Salvageable; it’s very selective hearsay you are exercising for which there is no corroborating evidence to elevate it above any other but a story to which you import a high degree of likelihood. Where’s that likelihood really coming from? Not from reality, not from any evidence independent of your presumption but from you alone. So why do you grant a high degree of likelihood – probably certainty – for this one and not for many, many others with far more corroboration? But only this one part of the Jesus story, as well;.what did happen to the other thousands of corpses reportedly resurrected on the day Jesus died? Not a peep from anyone anywhere about that part of the story. Strange, don’t you think? Almost like… it never happened…. but later claimed to have happened.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          tildeb-
          You are burying yourself in your own quicksand. The testimony of heaven is against you. The resurrected perennial flower is against you. The daily light of the sun is against you.

          Scripture is against you. History is against you. Common sense is against you. Logic is against you. Yes, ALL evidence indicts your stubbornness.

          God’s word is a detailed account of the life and times of man’s beginning, waywardness, with a God who is quite patient.

          But your greater concern: when will the day arrive when the hyena can write his own comedy routine and appear on Johnny Carson.

          Unless of course you see no difference between man and beast, in which case, a simple visit to the cemetaries of dead hyenas may help you. May take you a while to find their records……….

          Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Yes, true in every way. tks S.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Wally Fry says:

    Character slur=not shutting up and agreeing

    From: the atheist new English dictionary

    You big meanie Christians!

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s