Belief in God and Market Perspective

[SWhiting]

Quote from jem:

I did not miss it all- I just disagree with your conclusion - and the odd thing is - I clearly stated it. Why can't you read? do you have some bias?


I find it ironic that you just cited a post in which the person claims that there is no god - as if that is a fact. he acts like his science is rational.

Even funnier is that you are so biased you will lose this argument again.

Don't you atheists get it - science has no stake in your argument. They simply can not prove there is no creator.

Current science can not tell you what existed prior to the big bang.

At best science has no say. (for your side) And at worst many scientists now say there is evidence of design.

(I'm saving this quote; just so you can't change it.)

First of all, you cannot 'prove' a negative. Science does not proceed from the assumption of 'proving something is false': science looks for evidence to SUPPORT that a thesis is true.

All of the superstitions that I have referenced are believed & accepted by somebody. In fact, a lot of sombodies. Science cannot PROVE that 'tea-leaf'' reading is a load of bullshit. However, I would be willing to bet that YOU (and 99% of the population) agree that 'tea-leaf' reading is just that. (Of course, it doesn't matter what 99% of the population believes because TRUTH is not a popularity contest).

In essence, you are saying that, 'Since you cannot prove that there IS NOT a creator so I'm going to ASSUME that there is one'. I think it best to say; 'I don't know", than to fill in the blanks with unsupported suppositions.

You are correct that 'many' (I would assert 'a few') scientist's claim evidence of 'design'. I will reply to those 'scientist's' by saying: 'What is your evidence?' Publish this 'evidence' in an accepted peer-reviewed periodical. Otherwise, they are basing their beliefs on Opinions: not evidence. (And, of course, that is exactly what they are doing).

In short, why do reject a philosophy that has lots of evidence, but no conclusive proof (because science NEVER declares absolute prooof), but accept a belief that has no secular evidence?

Either accept the fact that your beliefs are based on 'faith' and stop trying to justify them scientifically or accept science and stop trying to live by faith.

All that I ask is this: if you believe in 'eternal life', STOP trying to control MY life on earth. Let me live my heathen ways and you can laugh at me on your curbstone made of gold. In the future. After we die. With Angels playing harps.

 

[I am...]

Quote from SWhiting:

All that I ask is this: if you believe in 'eternal life', STOP trying to control MY life on earth. Let me live my heathen ways and you can laugh at me on your curbstone made of gold. In the future. After we die. With Angels playing harps.

Ok, I will try to stop my thoughts from getting into your mind. There is only one small problem: There is only one mind. So I would recommend you reinforcing the thick walls of belief in the "my mind" paradigm so that light cannot enter. Bar the gates, and if I knock, don't answer! It could be antithetical to your existence.


Jesus

 

[SWhiting]

Quote from I am...:

Ok, I will try to stop my thoughts from getting into your mind. There is only one small problem: There is only one mind. So I would recommend you reinforcing the thick walls of belief in the "my mind" paradigm so that light cannot enter. Bar the gates, and if I knock, don't answer! It could be antithetical to your existence.


Jesus

If there is only ONE mind then: "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." No problem.

 

[I am...]

Quote from SWhiting:

If there is only ONE mind then: "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." No problem.

Yes, flip sides of the same coin:

son of man
Son of God

Either way, it is one.
Secretly [old testament/agreement], or
Openly [new testament/agreement].



Jesus

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I did not miss it all- I just disagree with your conclusion - and the odd thing is - I clearly stated it. Why can't you read? do you have some bias?


I find it ironic that you just cited a post in which the person claims that there is no god - as if that is a fact. he acts like he is rational.

Even funnier is that you are so biased you will lose this argument again.

Don't you atheists get it - science has no stake in your argument. They simply can not prove there is no creator. Therefore your side is not rational by your own standards.

Current science can not tell you what existed prior to the big bang.

At best science has no say. (for your side) And at worst many scientists now say there is evidence of design.

As usual, you're already all over the place.
You missed the point I was making.

Can you even explain what you think the point was I was making? in a couple of direct sentences of explanation without references to "Big Bangs" or how you think not being able to prove the un-provable is proof of something else?

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from jem:

how was that remnant save -what is the timing - what is the mechanism.

By the way I was not making the point that many were saved. Although i can see that is a fair interpretation of what i wrote. I try and type fast.. either between trades other work. And it frequently comes out poorly constructed.

The remnant of Israel is precisely the same as the believers in the New Testament.

Romans 11:1-6
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

The remnant of Israel, and the remnant in the New Testament time is the same as those who are true believers through the present day. They are all those who were chosen by God before time began. They are referred to "chosen" or "elect"

Election means God chooses a definite number of individuals for salvation. He knows each of His people by name, since He has chosen each of them; and those names He has recorded in the Book of Life. Some scriptures:

Acts 13:48: "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."

Jeremiah 1:5, "And before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This applies to Jeremiah in particular, but it is very evident in this passage that God did sanctify him and did prepare him before he was ever born. God chose Jeremiah.

Romans 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Before they were ever born, God said, "I have loved Jacob; I have hated Esau."

Ephesians 1:4, "According as He hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world...."

Acts 13:48 "For as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."

 

[EdgeHunter]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Yeah, but he got it wrong. His logic was faulty. Since many religions believe that only their god is the true god and everyone else will go to hell, which of the countless sects of the numerous religions are you to adhere to for the promised "salvation?"

Join every one and let HIM sort it out... :eek:

 

[stu]

Quote from TraderZones:

The remnant of Israel is precisely the same as the believers in the New Testament.

Romans 11:1-6
I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

The remnant of Israel, and the remnant in the New Testament time is the same as those who are true believers through the present day. They are all those who were chosen by God before time began. They are referred to "chosen" or "elect"

Election means God chooses a definite number of individuals for salvation. He knows each of His people by name, since He has chosen each of them; and those names He has recorded in the Book of Life. Some scriptures:

Acts 13:48: "As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."

Jeremiah 1:5, "And before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This applies to Jeremiah in particular, but it is very evident in this passage that God did sanctify him and did prepare him before he was ever born. God chose Jeremiah.

Romans 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Before they were ever born, God said, "I have loved Jacob; I have hated Esau."

Ephesians 1:4, "According as He hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world...."

Acts 13:48 "For as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed."

Genesis 19:32-36
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Genesis 22:2,10
And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and ... offer him there for a burnt offering.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Psalm 137:9
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


Good Trading !

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from jem:

did jews have a way to be saved prior to the resurrection?

The Old Testament pretty much points forward to the Messiah in many places. The OT Jews were saved through Christ, as everyone else who truly believed. God sent the Son to die for His people (Isaiah chapter 53 is the prototypical description) particularly verse:

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

The New Testament/Covenant was foretold in the OT in Jeremaiah 31:30-36, particularly:

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the LORD.

but, interestingly one of the ways to fulfill the promises jesus made seems to be living in accord with the sermon on the mount. A very difficult thing to do - but it does seem to leave the door open for good behavior.

Only if you ignore vast amounts of scripture. I could not even begin to enumerate them, but this page has some examples:

http://www.atruechurch.info/notbyworks.html

In christian apologetic0 you see the split on justification. Protestants emphasize faith - catholics - faith and prior to this pope making a declartion in the 80s on justification - I think it is fair to say Catholics point out faith and works.

Catholicism has little clue about biblical reality. Selling indulgences, having the pope instead of Christ, the inquisition, prayer to saints when it is clear that there is no other name under heaven (Christ) by which you might be saved, and numerous other examples

So if you read what Jesus said about everlasting life on the sermon on the mount - what will you conclude?

One concludes that you cannot cherry pick scripture. Otherwise, one becomes a member of this group (Matthew chapter 7):

21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

God NEVER knew them. They were people who THOUGHT they performed miracles and prophesied - good works, but God had never known them since the beginning of the world.

In other words, salvation does not occur unless the person's sins are covered by what Christ did on the cross. Everyone who encounters God will realize how dirty they are. Isaiah entering into Gods throne room (right before "here am I, send me" or When John sees the risen christ in the first few chapters of revelation, or Peter when Christ has performed a miracle (depart from me Lord, for I am a sinful man)...

Without the blood payment for sin, good works are completely useless for entering into a relationship with God.

 

[jem]

Stu -

My argument does not require anyone to prove a negative... it soley requires a scientific understanding.


We already know. Scientists have no ability to tell you what went on for the first moments after the big bang. I think you actually corrected me once and stated the time preriod is measured in yachto seconds not billionths. But top physicists are in accord. We can't measure things for a split second after the big bang. the physical as we know them did not exist at first...

Top physicists routinely say they can not tell us if there was a creator or not. This man are rational. No scientist has the tools or knowledge to state what caused the big bang. Therefore to be an atheist requires faith in there being no God.


That is not asking you to prove a negative. it is a fact.

it would be rational to say that based on your review of science you see no evidence of God.

that is an agnostic position and it is a rational position hold. I am not endorsing it as my position but I am saying that it is rational and in my book intellectually respectable.

----

As far as scientists who state there is evidence of a design. I have already given you quotes from a handful of top scientists on our other threads.

I will not bother searching for them unless you deny this fact.

If you do - it will prove how irrational you are.