Talk Elections

Choose one.

Do I even have to tell you what I think?  (Religion if you don't know me well).

Science, not that religion isn't inportant to a degree, but we can do more with Scientific advances than we will be able to do with religion alone, of which some hijack in order to stop Scientific advances.  If it wasn't for the hijacking of Religion by some to block Scientific advances I would say it would be even, but because some take the hijack method Science is more important.

Science. Without it we wouldn't all be here regurgitating our thoughts on an online forum :)

Religion is probably more 'important' in the sense of being a far greater threat to life, freedom, and well being, but obviously science is more important to a thinking person's understanding of the world.

Science.

It's far more important to have an understanding of the world than to make up fairytales of how it came to be.  Science. 

I'm confused by that answer you gave as the sentence previous to your answer describes evolution.

Science is a much bigger threat to life. Hiroshima?

Science.

Both are needed by human society, perhaps in the context of a nation, science, but as an individual, only faith in Christ can allow you to gain salvation and entrance into heaven.

Who to?

IMO both are important.

and for what?

Hah; quite

I agree as well. Jimmy Carter gets a bad rap.

The theories of Galen went unchallenged for over a thousand years. Steady State theory was once an orthodox belief. As were various, rather unpleasant, racial theories (often linked to evolution). And so on and so forth.

Science has been (and is) as full of fairy tales as Religion. The failure to understand this is secular Western arrogance at it's worst.

False Dichtomy

You can't really compare modern science to that centuries ago.

Sure I can. It's just better informed these days.

Don't get me wrong though; I'm not anti-science or anything.

Isn't Al a geologist anyway?

Well, for the poll, assume science of the last 100 years. I'd imagine something like 99% of all published scientific papers are from the last century.

Science/Other

Yes, but only an amateur one.

Science

Science in a massive landslide. Invisible men in the sky, talking snakes, and a plythera of rules made up by some pissy carpenter from 2000 years ago take a back seat to advancing our society as far as I am concerned.

Both equally.

Assuming that we are using scientific advancements and research within the past 100 or so years, science by a landslide. With luck, science will someday be able to prove or disprove the existence of one of multiple Gods so the whole issue can be put to rest.

Why would God allow some petty humans to come along with their "science" and discover him?

One can ask the opposite question pretty easily - why wouldn't he?

Agreed.  As a result, I can't vote on this poll.

Only jfern would come up with a question this dumb ::)

This is a loaded question. The answer depends on the person's beliefs on religion.

Both equally. They each describe different areas of the world. Science answers how, religion answers why.

Each should be in balance and stay within their own realms, and not try to intrude on the other's domain.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Do I have to say anymore?

Not sure exactly what this question is trying to juxtapose…what level of science is in question?...what religion is in question?

For instance, the stories within the bible contain a lot of science, some God given and some attained through human deduction.  The characters in the bible displayed scientific reasoning and were no less scientifically advanced than other nations in their time…In fact, Genesis even details the scientific progress of man:

Gen 4:20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.

Gen 4:21 His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute.

Gen 4:22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.

---


Well, if science needs constant self-correction, then it can never be “correct”.

---
 

Who is playing the guessing game: the one whose story has remained the same…or the one whose keeps changing?

---


Now, on that, we at least agree.

It also tells us a story about a talking serpent that tricked a woman into eating a fruit that made every person inherently sinful.  What's your point?


Whose story has remained the same?  First your God is a tyrannical bloodthirsty power who smites every nation who disagrees with him and bestows upon his people a ridiculous set of commandments and unbelievably harsh punishments; the next day he wants you to give away your belongings, turn the other cheek, and show love and compassion to the destitute.  The fact that nobody can agree on a set interpretation of the Bible (you have your young earth creationists, your old earth creationists, your theistic evolutionists, your flat earthers, etc.), and particularly the fact that your religion is just one of many that claims to be correct, how are we supposed to know whether your story has remained the same if we don't even know what it is?  While I'm sure you'd be glad to tell everyone your God-inspired interpretation of his own good book, nobody will really care because no one agrees 100% with all of it.

1st)  The New Covenant was prophesied in the Old Testament, so it is obviously NOT a departure from the story.

2nd)  The New Testament is based off the Old Testament, so, again, it is not a departure, rather it is a fulfillment.

3rd) The New Testament states that Christ will "smite every nation who disagrees with him", so that is also not a departure.

4th) The Old Covenants "ridiculous set of commandments" were NOT in place at the beginning of the Old Testament, so it doesn't represent the entire Old Testament, and therefore your comparison misses the point that they didn't exist in the begginning, but were added for a short time, then removed.   You missed the point that the purpose was to demonstrate that humans do NOT have the ability to attain salvation based upon merit since they are themselves imperfect and sinful, not to mention the other purpose of identifying the Messiah.   

5) Your hatred of God's word will be your undoing.  Repent.

---


The "story that hasn't changed" I was referring to is God's word (i.e. God's interpretation or description of how the world works), not the various interpretations of it.

---


“Nobody” cares? “No one” agrees 100% with all of it?!  Where did you get that idea?! 

I don't recall ever saying that there was any part of it with which I disagreed.  I don't recall any of the writers of scripture disagreeing with any scripture.  In fact, I see the writers of scripture viewing scripture as the word of God. 

And none other than Jesus stated scripture is without flaw.  So, who exactly is this “no one” to which you are referring?  Are you referring to yourself?  And why would the opinion of a “nobody” impress me?

Hmmmmmmmm......................


lol


Science, of course.

That doesn't matter - the fact is that God repeatedly committed genocide against other nations in the OT, and suddenly had a change of heart in the NT.  This is where the phrase "Old Testament-style" derives from, obviously.


Correct, you have made an excellent case to reject the New Testament.


The definition of "nation" obviously changed, though, because God actually held your geneology against you in the OT (I'll cite examples if need be), whereas anyone was allowed into God's kingdom in the NT.  I don't see why anyone born outside of the Jews before 10 AD gets such an unfair shake.


But all that time before the commandments were there, humans still did not have any Messiah, nor were they perfect or not sinful.  How did they attain salvation during this period?  Actually, how did they attain salvation during the time in which the commandments were in place, given how it would be virtually impossible to follow them 100% perfectly?  And why would God use 1,500 years of people to make an example for the people that followed?


OK.


You missed my point entirely.  Nobody will ever be able to agree 100% on an interpretation of the Bible.  For example, many of the Christians on this board seem to disagree with your opinion on who God's chosen people are (you say it is still the Jews, IIRC), and that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Given this problem, how are we supposed to know which interpretation is correct, given that two interpretations of the Bible can yield wildly different viewpoints?


Remind me again where he stated scripture is without flaw?  In the scripture itself?  This is certainly a logical fallacy, since you cannot rely on the same source you are using to prove something as proof that the source itself is valid.  If I don't think scripture is without flaw, why would I trust Jesus when he says that it is without flaw in the scripture itself?

Science.

The only “change of heart” was God’s attitude towards Christians because their punishment was placed upon Jesus on the cross, but there is still a future “genocide” coming for those who are not part of the family of God. 

So, you’ve missed the point of the genocides within the Old Testament – they represent the destiny of the ungodly on the Day of Judgment.

---


Didn’t Israel also incur God’s wrath in the Old Testament?  Weren’t whole generations of Jews killed off in the Old Testament?  Didn’t God send nations to devour and carry off Israel into captivity?

As far as splitting hairs over the definition of “nations”, the bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, clearly states that the entire earth will have the wrath of God poured out on it.  Therefore, “nations” is meant to be all encompassing.

You are missing that point that Jesus himself is pictured as both judge and executioner, so obviously this is not a departure from the Old Testament.

---



The path of salvation has always been the same:  “The righteous will live by faith”.  And salvation has always been based upon God’s grace, not upon the merit of human actions (take the example of God choosing between Jacob and Esau BEFORE they had done anything good or bad).

430 years before the Old Covenant commandments, God prophesied to Abraham that the Gentiles would be justified by faith through the message of gospel: "All nations will be blessed through you."  The blessing of the gospel to the whole earth came “through Abraham” because Jesus was a descendent of Abraham.  That is why Abraham is called “the father of the faithful”, because we become children of Abraham in the eyes of God when we receive Christ into our hearts, so we become identified with Christ, who is Abraham’s heir and promised seed. 

---


Actually, I agree with the other members in that the Christians are God’s chosen people…but my point is that Christians are just a PART of God’s people since Israel has NOT been forever discarded by God because the scripture clearly states that the Jews will turn to Christ just prior to his return.

Rom 9:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part UNTIL the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. 27And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’

---


Well…you certainly have a point - it is difficult to judge between two opinions when only one side is willing to provide an explanation for their beliefs.  ;)  We’ll have to wait to hear from those attempting to boast over the rejection of the Jews….In reality, my view of Israel’s future redemption is in line with the vast majority of biblical commentaries.  Heck, even Judaism holds the view that Israel will turn their hearts to God at the time of the coming of the Messiah because it is clearly prophesied within the Old Testament (OT), which is why Paul quoted from the OT while making the point that Israel’s rejection is only temporary.

The way I weigh different biblical interpretations is:
1) Does the opinion humble itself to the authority of scripture.
2) Does the opinion force contradictions within scripture.

So, in the matter of Israel’s rejection, the question becomes:  Which opinion is in agreement with the whole of scripture?

---


I totally agree - scripture can not stand if the sum of its parts were simply the testimony of one witness.  Yet scripture is NOT the testimony of one witness; rather it is a compiled testimony of dozens.

John 10:35 Jesus answered them, ‘…the Scripture cannot be broken’

There are many other places throughout the gospels where Jesus pointed to the authority of scripture by stating states that “the Scripture must be fulfilled” and “the Scriptures testify about me”.