Does there exist a "chosen" people in the eyes of God

[kjw47]

I've always wondered about the idea of a "chosen" people. It seems to me the idea of a "chosen" people has been used to justify empire building and invasion by scapegoating or labeling other people as sub-humans not worthy of being sacred in the eyes of God. So my question for the good people participating in these forums is do you believe there exists a "chosen" people and if so who are they? And if not, do you believe God loves each of us as equals in the eyes of God? Does God love some people more than others?

God -YHVH(Jehovah) sacrificed his son so repented sins would be forgiven. Most sin and don't even know it. 99% are being mislead. Its always been that way except with the possibility of when Israel stood strong. But they fell over and over. The world hates the truth. They killed-Jesus, apostles and followers back then. One doesn't kill unless their hearts are filled with hatred. The religion that came out of Rome did not have Jesus. None of its branches fixed it.
I believe the reference to Israel in revelation is because John did not know what the religion would be called. He meant- spiritual Israel= Gods chosen. They most definitely follow Jesus, And serve the God of Israel-- YHVH(Jehovah) a single being God--Jesus' God--John 20:17, Rev 3:12)-- Literal Israel does not. ( Matt 23:37-39)

 

[nPeace]

Actually in the greater picture of evolution neither is adequate. We have wide spread evidence of modern humans around greater that 6000 years ago, and actually greater than 200,000 years ago. The oldest modern humans found are 300,000 years old from Morocco.

That's certainly an interesting CLAIM - considering the evidence seem to suggest that human life is not as old as they theorize.
The Bible's history of mankind is rather close to the time where it has evidently been discovered civilization is said to have started, and the time period seem to fit the evidence.
Genesis 2:8-14

The Answer to the Oldest Civilization in the World May Surprise You
Oldest Ancient civilizations
Around 5000 BCE, things slowly began to change. For the first time, humans started to settle down in one place. They began growing their own food and building permanent homes. The first cities were formed. People began using metals, such as copper and bronze, instead of stones to make tools. Then, around 3000 BCE, they created a system of letters and began to write. This new form of living was called civilization.

History of writing

From the looks of things, something seems to be wrong... somewhere.
World's Oldest Stone Tools Predate Humans

2.8 million years old intelligence who never learned how to speak or write for millions of years then... it seems quite strange to me. What did they do for two million years? Hunt.
.......

 

[shunyadragon]

That's certainly an interesting CLAIM - considering the evidence seem to suggest that human life is not as old as they theorize.

It is not just a claim. It is based on objective verifiable evidence.Reference please?

The Bible's history of mankind is rather close to the time where it has evidently been discovered civilization is said to have started, and the time period seem to fit the evidence.
Genesis 2:8-14

The Answer to the Oldest Civilization in the World May Surprise You
Oldest Ancient civilizations
Around 5000 BCE, things slowly began to change. For the first time, humans started to settle down in one place. They began growing their own food and building permanent homes. The first cities were formed. People began using metals, such as copper and bronze, instead of stones to make tools. Then, around 3000 BCE, they created a system of letters and began to write. This new form of living was called civilization.

History of writing

Nothing here surprises me, but this does not relate tot he evidence of the earliest humans, and the billions of years of the geologic record of the evolution of life on earth.

The evidence parallels the above that the Pentateuch was compiled no earlier then ~1000 - 700 BCE.

From the looks of things, something seems to be wrong... somewhere.

Yes, your knowledge of the sciences involved.

World's Oldest Stone Tools Predate Humans

2.8 million years old intelligence who never learned how to speak or write for millions of years then... it seems quite strange to me. What did they do for two million years? Hunt.
.......

The stone tools in the reference above belonged to our ancestors, though not homo sapiens, they were intelligent enough to have stone tools.

Selective biased evidence may seem strange to those with a religious agenda, and a lack of background in the related sciences to understand the references you cite in proper context.

 

[nPeace]

It is not just a claim. It is based on objective verifiable evidence.Reference please?



Nothing here surprises me, but this does not relate tot he evidence of the earliest humans, and the billions of years of the geologic record of the evolution of life on earth.

The evidence parallels the above that the Pentateuch was compiled no earlier then ~1000 - 700 BCE.


Yes, your knowledge of the sciences involved.



The stone tools in the reference above belonged to our ancestors, though not homo sapiens, they were intelligent enough to have stone tools.

Selective biased evidence may seem strange to those with a religious agenda, and a lack of background in the related sciences to understand the references you cite in proper context.

But oftentimes we humans are wrong, and are corrected sometimes reluctantly. Not true?

 

[stvdv]

29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 01

But oftentimes we humans are wrong, and are corrected sometimes reluctantly. Not true?

I think that is a very important observation.
The Bible is written by just humans. So I would not be surprised that they had this fact wrong
Also considering the fact the the evolution of science has been quite big. So many facts from then have been refuted

So yes you are right, we humans oftentimes are wrong.
Science have been improving by admitting their mistakes.
Many Christians now, though hesistantly, must admit Biblical mistakes

My Master who claims to be at least of the same grandeur as Jesus did say that Rama lived 20.000 years ago
Of course I expect nobody to believe this claim. But science claiming life exists since 200.000 seems to consistent with my Master's claim

But actually we need not worry, as my mother always said "however fast the lie is, the truth will eventually catch up"

I won't be surprised that science will easily proof these little things we discuss here within 50 years. Time will tell

 

[shunyadragon]

But oftentimes we humans are wrong, and are corrected sometimes reluctantly. Not true?

Your making a weak attempt at an 'argument of ignorance.' Yes, over time the knowledge of science changes and evolves, and yes, scientists are often wrong, but science has a self-correcting process that corrects problems over time. All our basic sciences have a firm foundation in the objective verifiable evidence. The same science that demonstrates the science of evolution and that age of life and the earth beyond a reasonable doubt is the same science that reliably makes our computers work and airplanes fly.

 

[nPeace]

I think that is a very important observation.
The Bible is written by just humans. So I would not be surprised that they had this fact wrong
Also considering the fact the the evolution of science has been quite big. So many facts from then have been refuted

So yes you are right, we humans oftentimes are wrong.
Science have been improving by admitting their mistakes.
Many Christians now, though hesistantly, must admit Biblical mistakes

My Master who claims to be at least of the same grandeur as Jesus did say that Rama lived 20.000 years ago
Of course I expect nobody to believe this claim. But science claiming life exists since 200.000 seems to consistent with my Master's claim

But actually we need not worry, as my mother always said "however fast the lie is, the truth will eventually catch up"

I won't be surprised that science will easily proof these little things we discuss here within 50 years. Time will tell

I have yet to see the Bible proven wrong. If it is inspired by God, as its writers claim, then that's what I would expect - a book that is accurate on everything it mentions - to the surprise of many.

 

[nPeace]

Your making a weak attempt at an 'argument of ignorance.' Yes, over time the knowledge of science changes and evolves, and yes, scientists are often wrong, but science has a self-correcting process that corrects problems over time. All our basic sciences have a firm foundation in the objective verifiable evidence. The same science that demonstrates the science of evolution and that age of life and the earth beyond a reasonable doubt is the same science that reliably makes our computers work and airplanes fly.

How many times do I hear that word ignorance. do we really know what ignorance is, or do we just use it loosely, because we think it never applies to us - only someone else.

We think, 'Oh science is right. Science is boss.' We never really stop to think. Science is a study - by scientist. Maybe I should pause that that sinks in. What is a scientist? I hope I am right that it's a human being, and not a god.

How many times has it been said, and seen, that human beings with power, money, and thus overwhelming influence, used such to establish their ideas, and desires?

Am I speaking what are not facts?
At what point in history was it decided that everyone stop thinking and accept whatever is presented as science?
So now, this is science -

Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth.

...when we accept great big probabilities, that have never really been shown to be possibilities.

If this makes me ignorant, then thank God for ignorance.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have yet to see the Bible proven wrong. If it is inspired by God, as its writers claim, then that's what I would expect - a book that is accurate on everything it mentions - to the surprise of many.

Proven is an odd choice,since there are hundreds of interpretations, and in reality none can be 'proven' wrong. Your view can be demonstrated highly flawed simply based on the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Proven is an odd choice,since there are hundreds of interpretations, and in reality none can be 'proven' wrong. Your view can be demonstrated highly flawed simply based on the objective verifiable evidence.

I've seen people arguing over a tree - what type it is, how long it's been there, etc. at the end of the day... it's still a tree.

 

[shunyadragon]

How many times do I hear that word ignorance. do we really know what ignorance is, or do we just use it loosely, because we think it never applies to us - only someone else.

The misuse the fallacy an 'appeal to ignorance' applies to everyone who uses it justify an argument when they lack a sound argument.

An 'appeal to ignorance' is not ignorance. It is a fallacy you rely on in your posts, and you need to read up on your logic, and your science as well.

We think, 'Oh science is right. Science is boss.' We never really stop to think. Science is a study - by scientist. Maybe I should pause that that sinks in. What is a scientist? I hope I am right that it's a human being, and not a god.

I am not sure where you are going with this. Scientists nor I are claiming anything of the above. Reread my posts, and the do not reflect any of the above.

How many times has it been said, and seen, that human beings with power, money, and thus overwhelming influence, used such to establish their ideas, and desires?

Many, many, many times, but this soap box has abaolutely noting to do with science.

Am I speaking what are not facts?

actually no, you are appealing to disjoint sound bits to justify your religious agenda without any knowledge of science, and by the way 'Rules of Logic' also.

At what point in history was it decided that everyone stop thinking and accept whatever is presented as science?

At no point in history is this claimed to take place, except for those that cling to a literal interpretation of ancinet scripture thousands of years old.

So now, this is science -
Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial. These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth.
...when we accept great big probabilities, that have never really been shown to be possibilities.

They are not probabilities nor possibilities. They are based on objective verifiable evidence and the firm foundation of scientific methods.

If this makes me ignorant, then thank God for ignorance.

I would not thank God for your ignorance, because it is self imposed by your refusal to make a sincere effort to understand science as it is.

Again, you do not understand the 'rules of logic' Your repeated 'appeals to ignorance' is logical fallacy, and does not translate to you being ignorant, but your intentional rejection of science based on a religious agenda, and a lack of knowledge of logic and science is severely problematic.[/QUOTE]

 

[shunyadragon]

I've seen people arguing over a tree - what type it is, how long it's been there, etc. at the end of the day... it's still a tree.

All this can be easily solved by the objective verifiable evidence concerning the tree and easily resolved the dispute, That is if those arguing do not have a religious agenda that rejects objective verifiable evidence..

 

[nPeace]

The misuse the fallacy an 'appeal to ignorance' applies to everyone who uses it justify an argument when they lack a sound argument.

An 'appeal to ignorance' is not ignorance. It is a fallacy you rely on in your posts, and you need to read up on your logic, and your science as well.



I am not sure where you are going with this. Scientists nor I are claiming anything of the above. Reread my posts, and the do not reflect any of the above.



Many, many, many times, but this soap box has abaolutely noting to do with science.



actually no, you are appealing to disjoint sound bits to justify your religious agenda without any knowledge of science, and by the way 'Rules of Logic' also.



At no point in history is this claimed to take place, except for those that cling to a literal interpretation of ancinet scripture thousands of years old.



They are not probabilities nor possibilities. They are based on objective verifiable evidence and the firm foundation of scientific methods.



I would not thank God for your ignorance, because it is self imposed by your refusal to make a sincere effort to understand science as it is.

Again, you do not understand the 'rules of logic' Your repeated 'appeals to ignorance' is logical fallacy, and does not translate to you being ignorant, but your intentional rejection of science based on a religious agenda, and a lack of knowledge of logic and science is severely problematic.

So basically, I don't know what science is, and I argue against scientific evidence because I have a religious agenda.
So scientists who do not accept the scientific evidence, don't know what science is, and argue against it because they have a religious agenda.
That's what I get from your post. Did I somehow misunderstand you, or is that what you are saying?

For example, say that a young scientist was arguing against you, and they presented arguments against many of the "evidences" presented in support of the evolution theory - including the evolution of the whale, What would be your response to them... assuming they were not even religious at all?

 

[shunyadragon]

So basically, I don't know what science is, and I argue against scientific evidence because I have a religious agenda.

Correct!!!

So scientists who do not accept the scientific evidence, don't know what science is, and argue against it because they have a religious agenda.
That's what I get from your post. Did I somehow misunderstand you, or is that what you are saying?

That is not in any of my posts. The above is very very confusing. Science is based on the objective verifiable evidence and scientific methods accepted by ALL sciences world wide. I am a scientist, geologist and soils scientist, with more than 40 years experience. What are your qualifications concerning science?

For example, say that a young scientist was arguing against you, and they presented arguments against many of the "evidences" presented in support of the evolution theory - including the evolution of the whale, What would be your response to them... assuming they were not even religious at all?

Young scientist?!?!?! This hypothetical is really unreal. 98%+ of all scientists in the fields related to evolution endorse the science of evolution. 90% of all scientists endorse the science of evolution. If a young scientist rejected the science of evolution I would spend some time with him going over the vast amount of objective verifiable evidence and provide references to him or her, for an earth and universe billions of years old, and the evolution of life on earth.

Again . . . the same science that demonstrates the validity of the science of evolution also is the reason airplanes reliably fly, and computers work. Of course, sometimes there are mistakes and errors, and airplanes and computers fail.

 

[nPeace]

Correct!!!


That is not in any of my posts. The above is very very confusing. Science is based on the objective verifiable evidence and scientific evidence. I am a scientist, geologist and soils scientist, with more than 40 years experience. What are your qualifications concerning science?



Young scientist?!?!?! This hypothetical is really unreal. 98%+ of all scientists in the fields related to evolution endorse the science of evolution. 90% of all scientists endorse the science of evolution. If a young scientist rejected the science of evolution I would spend some time with him going over the vast amount of objective verifiable evidence and provide references to him or her, for an earth and universe billions of years old, and the evolution of life on earth.

Again . . . the same science that demonstrates the validity of the science of evolution also is the reason airplanes reliably fly, and computers work. Of course, sometimes there are mistakes and errors, and airplanes and computers fail.

Okay. The 2%, and the 10%, who are experienced scientist. Do they have a religious agenda, and don't understand?

 

[stvdv]

29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 15

I have yet to see the Bible proven wrong. If it is inspired by God, as its writers claim, then that's what I would expect - a book that is accurate on everything it mentions - to the surprise of many.

You might be surprised. My experience with Masters is "surprises when you don't expect"..."Love my uncertainty". Jesus was a Master. Anything is possible. But I love surprises. And I don't care if even my Guru puts me on the wrong foot [even if I care, He do it anyway; probably more. I learn to accept and go with the flow]. Most people need certainty. Okay, I won't mind, but once my Master came in my life, certainty was gone. BUT never had more fun.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay. The 2%, and the 10%, who are experienced scientist. Do they have a religious agenda, and don't understand?

By far most do. I do not know of any scientists in the fields related to the science of evolution, that reject it without a religious agenda. If you know of any scientists who reject the science of evolution and do not have religious agenda. There are a few, very few, scientists in the field that work with and for Answers in Genesis, Discovery institute, and a few other fundamentalist organizations.

 

[nPeace]

By far most do. I do not know of any scientists in the fields related to the science of evolution, that reject it without a religious agenda. If you know of any scientists who reject the science of evolution and do not have religious agenda. There are a few, very few, scientists in the field that work with and for Answers in Genesis, Discovery institute, and a few other fundamentalist organizations.

Okay. So here we have scientists - I assume all equal on level of scientific understanding (Am I mistaken? Correct me if I am wrong. Thank you), who disagree on what the majority calls scientific evidence, and scientific fact.

So the majority points their finger at the minority, and say, "Okay. It's not that you are ignorant about science, like the uneducated Christians, and other ignorant people who may or may not have a religion. It's because you have a religious agenda - even if you did not have a religion,"

So maybe it's not wrong then for the minority to point their finger at the majority and say, "You only believe this because you have a political, and or anti-religious agenda."

Finger pointing exercise, it looks like.
So why is the evidence not so clear as to not have this?

Wait a minute.
That sounds so familiar... like, 'Why is the Bible so subject to interpretation by those who read it?'

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay. So here we have scientists - I assume all equal on level of scientific understanding (Am I mistaken? Correct me if I am wrong. Thank you), who disagree on what the majority calls scientific evidence, and scientific fact.

So the majority points their finger at the minority, and say, "Okay. It's not that you are ignorant about science, like the uneducated Christians, and other ignorant people who may or may not have a religion. It's because you have a religious agenda - even if you did not have a religion,"

Virtually all the scientists that reject evolution as Christians fully admit that the Bible literally has priority over science in their pledge to the organizations such as 'Answers in Genesis.' They full well admit to a religious agenda.Again, I do not know of any scientists in the fields related to evolution and have no religion and reject evolution.

So maybe it's not wrong then for the minority to point their finger at the majority and say, "You only believe this because you have a political, and or anti-religious agenda."

Finger pointing exercise, it looks like.
So why is the evidence not so clear as to not have this?

Human nature. The evidence is clear and accurate enough for 98%+ of all scientists in the field to endorse the science of evolution. The scientist are from many different religions, nations, cultures, and political beliefs so that is not remotely the issue here.

There is no evidence of those who do not believe in a religion rejecting the science of evolution. If education is the problem it can be easily resolved with education, but no education is not the problem with rejecting the science of evolution. It is religious beliefs opposed to evolution that is the problem.

Wait a minute.
That sounds so familiar... like, 'Why is the Bible so subject to interpretation by those who read it?'

It is the history of Christianity. Why are you asking me why?!?!?

 

[nPeace]

Virtually all the scientists that reject evolution as Christians fully admit that the Bible literally has priority over science in their pledge to the organizations such as 'Answers in Genesis.' They full well admit to a religious agenda.Again, I do not know of any scientists in the fields related to evolution and have no religion and reject evolution.





Human nature. The evidence is clear and accurate enough for 98%+ of all scientists in the field to endorse the science of evolution. The scientist are from many different religions, nations, cultures, and political beliefs so that is not remotely the issue here.

There is no evidence of those who do not believe in a religion rejecting the science of evolution. If education is the problem it can be easily resolved with education, but no education is not the problem with rejecting the science of evolution. It is religious beliefs opposed to evolution that is the problem.



It is the history of Christianity. Why are you asking me why?!?!?

Virtually all - doesn't mean all, so I take that to mean you can't speak for all. If you say you know what's in their minds and hearts, then you have to know if you are god to know. I'm not, so I don't know.

The same applies to the other side as well. I don't know their hearts. If you know.... well...

I can't tell you what's in these people's mind and heart. I can tell you that I don't have an agenda. If I am given clear, concrete proof of something, I cannot go against it. So I think it's fair to give these guys the benefit of the doubt.

I can prove that I don't have a religious agenda too. I have more than once challenged persons to provide me the solid empirical evidence for the evolution of the whale, and no one seems willing to do so.
I conclude, that's because no one can, as I can see for myself... and that's just one of the areas where evidence is clearly lacking.
I think many scientists honestly feel the same way.

The last question was not addressed to you.
This gemtleman sounds sincere to me.