Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

[Sophrosyne]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but, but keep in mind, the vast majority of Christians disagree.

The vast majority of Japanese during WW2 would also disagree with anyone that didn't believe the Emperor at the time wasn't God so I guess with that logic he must have been God too you are entitled to your opinion on this also.

 

[Frank Robert]

The vast majority of Japanese during WW2 would also disagree with anyone that didn't believe the Emperor at the time wasn't God so I guess with that logic he must have been God too you are entitled to your opinion on this also.

I was simply pointing out that Christians who do not share your religious beliefs are the majority of your fellow Christians. Whether God exists or not is a different argument.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I was simply pointing out that Christians who do not share your religious beliefs are the majority of your fellow Christians. Whether God exists or not is a different argument.

It matters not to me what the majority believes as Jesus claimed the minority would follow the narrow path not the majority.

 

[Gene2memE]

The vast majority of Japanese during WW2 would also disagree with anyone that didn't believe the Emperor at the time wasn't God so I guess with that logic he must have been God too you are entitled to your opinion on this also.

Trying to parse the triple negative here, but I think you're arguing that the majority of Japanese during WW2 thought the emperor was literally a god?

If that's the case, you're wildly off base.

The concept of Imperial Divinity wasn't broadly accepted in Japanese society. The concept of 'Arahitokami' revolved around the emperor being the living representative of Amaterasu in the physical world, rather than an actual god. This was broadly true even during the Imperial fervour during Japan's post Meiji nationalist period and the adoption of State Shinto in the 1920s and 1930s - in fact, the Japanese government tried to stamp out some of the more extreme imperial cults (which, if you know something about Japan during the period, meant they were wiild).

The divine emperor is very different to Christian notions of instantiation/embodiment around Jesus, where a man is literally a god and thus a supernatural being. The Japanese emperor was seen as a human descendant of a god and an embodying the commitment of the kami to divine providence and protection of Japan. But he wasn't generally seen as some sort of supernatural being. Just a human with divine origins.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Trying to parse the triple negative here, but I think you're arguing that the majority of Japanese during WW2 thought the emperor was literally a god?

If that's the case, you're wildly off base.

The concept of Imperial Divinity wasn't broadly accepted in Japanese society. The concept of 'Arahitokami' revolved around the emperor being the living representative of Amaterasu in the physical world, rather than an actual god. This was broadly true even during the Imperial fervour during Japan's post Meiji nationalist period and the adoption of State Shinto in the 1920s and 1930s - in fact, the Japanese government tried to stamp out some of the more extreme imperial cults (which, if you know something about Japan during the period, meant they were wiild).

The divine emperor is very different to Christian notions of instantiation/embodiment around Jesus, where a man is literally a god and thus a supernatural being. The Japanese emperor was seen as a human descendant of a god and an embodying the commitment of the kami to divine providence and protection of Japan. But he wasn't generally seen as some sort of supernatural being. Just a human with divine origins.

God or an agent of God he was obeyed fervently as if worshiped by them.

 

[Gene2memE]

God or an agent of God he was obeyed fervently as if worshiped by them.

Holy shifting of goalposts Batman!

 

[Frank Robert]

It matters not to me what the majority believes as Jesus claimed the minority would follow the narrow path not the majority.

Do you really think that if we meet God on death he will give a darn about what you believe on how life started on earth?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Holy shifting of goalposts Batman!

no more shifting them than this thread does by equating God to just a man that is an average architect so he can be dismissed as both intelligent designer and creator. What matter less about a lot of this "god" stuff is not as much the apologetics when it comes to the general population which is unlearned about things it is actually the perception of the average person and the conclusion of what they are lead to believe and the way they act in accordance to the information and the culture that pervades from that. Emperors throughout history have on more than one occasion have been equated to gods. Many have proclaimed themselves gods. Even kings have proclaimed themselves god. A lifetime position that is unquestioned essentially a dictatorship elevates the dictator to the ultimate authority that usually must be obeyed or punishment will ensue and the favorite punishment for total defiance of these regimes is death. I've seen people proclaim various presidents with a god syndrome and them saying their followers worship them. I've seen groups that follow political figures be called cultists and ascribe their allegiance to being a religion. If you have a nation that goes as far as committing suicide because those who represent the emperor tell them they need them to that goes beyond just ruling the country and approaches the reverence of a deity methinks.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Do you really think that if we meet God on death he will give a darn about what you believe on how life started on earth?

There a many people in the world named Jesus and many religions have saviors so to speak. If you pick the wrong savior and put your faith in him/her/it etc, does God have to honor that upon your death? The problem is the more you have right about who God is the greater chance your faith will be in the God who saves you. Get God wrong and you could be trying to believe a spanish guy named Jesus who owns a car lot in Mexico is God.
Jesus himself equated in the Bible that there would be people who would do miracles in his name but he will say to them after death..... "I never knew you".
Now to be honest I am not God so I cannot judge a persons belief in evolution vs God and how that interaction affects their relationship with God. God knows our hearts and knows we struggle against ourselves (sin) and it is up to him to decide if your faith is in him or not.

 

[Frank Robert]

There a many people in the world named Jesus and many religions have saviors so to speak. If you pick the wrong savior and put your faith in him/her/it etc, does God have to honor that upon your death? The problem is the more you have right about who God is the greater chance your faith will be in the God who saves you. Get God wrong and you could be trying to believe a spanish guy named Jesus who owns a car lot in Mexico is God.
Jesus himself equated in the Bible that there would be people who would do miracles in his name but he will say to them after death..... "I never knew you".
Now to be honest I am not God so I cannot judge a persons belief in evolution vs God and how that interaction affects their relationship with God. God knows our hearts and knows we struggle against ourselves (sin) and it is up to him to decide if your faith is in him or not.

When it comes to religion you are hundreds of times more likely to believe what you have been taught from early childhood. Converts are rare. Believe what you will but also respect the religious beliefs of others. You appear to have a religious belief that the bible is the literal word of God, most Christians do not. Cherish your religious beliefs but creationist should not try to force their apologetics on others.

 

[Sophrosyne]

When it comes to religion you are hundreds of times more likely to believe what you have been taught from early childhood. Converts are rare. Believe what you will but also respect the religious beliefs of others. You appear to have a religious belief that the bible is the literal word of God, most Christians do not. Enjoy your religious beliefs but don't try to force creationist apologetics on others.

1)I agree that what we are taught in childhood is what we believe in most of the time.
2)In government funded schools almost every child is taught evolution. They cannot get a good grade in the class unless they successfully parrot their knowledge on tests and quizzes as I was taught it long ago in high school in a biology class.
3)Converts away from evolution to creationism and/or intelligent design are rare also
4)I don't respect religious beliefs of others, as these can be wrong and harmful. I give respect that is due to people for their character and that includes how they present their beliefs and the relevance of them in their lives. Religious beliefs an be toxic to humanity and I'm not pointing to any specific one here at all.
5)I do believe that the default way to read the bible is literal, but one cannot read it totally literally when studying it as some things are not literal, some things tie into multiple things on multiple levels in multiple places and some require thinking that taps into faith itself. I won't go into great discussion here on this matter.
6)Christians vary widely as to what is literal and not in the Bible. I think that if you were to put a percentage rate on how much they take the Bible literally you would likely have a majority of people taking a majority of the Bible literally.
7)As I'm not speaking to children here in the forum, there is no penalty to reject anything and everything I say whatsoever this is your thread and I thank you for this engagement.

In closing I thank you for the banter here, I rarely engage like this much as I've found that God doesn't want me to debate generally speaking as it tend to make my personality and ego drift towards less being less sociable than I already am. People don't tend to want to hang around someone that they consider likes to lecture others thus I try not to do that (but too often fail).

 

[Hans Blaster]

1)I agree that what we are taught in childhood is what we believe in most of the time.
2)In government funded schools almost every child is taught evolution. They cannot get a good grade in the class unless they successfully parrot their knowledge on tests and quizzes as I was taught it long ago in high school in a biology class.
3)Converts away from evolution to creationism and/or intelligent design are rare also
4)I don't respect religious beliefs of others, as these can be wrong and harmful. I give respect that is due to people for their character and that includes how they present their beliefs and the relevance of them in their lives. Religious beliefs an be toxic to humanity and I'm not pointing to any specific one here at all.
5)I do believe that the default way to read the bible is literal, but one cannot read it totally literally when studying it as some things are not literal, some things tie into multiple things on multiple levels in multiple places and some require thinking that taps into faith itself. I won't go into great discussion here on this matter.
6)Christians vary widely as to what is literal and not in the Bible. I think that if you were to put a percentage rate on how much they take the Bible literally you would likely have a majority of people taking a majority of the Bible literally.
7)As I'm not speaking to children here in the forum, there is no penalty to reject anything and everything I say whatsoever this is your thread and I thank you for this engagement.

In closing I thank you for the banter here, I rarely engage like this much as I've found that God doesn't want me to debate generally speaking as it tend to make my personality and ego drift towards less being less sociable than I already am. People don't tend to want to hang around someone that they consider likes to lecture others thus I try not to do that (but too often fail).

You write as if understanding and accepting the findings of a scientific endeavor is a religion. It is not.

[BTW people do escape from the beliefs imprinted upon them in childhood. Many of us here have. That's why my "faith indicator" in the info box doesn't say "Catholic". (Glad I escaped that train wreck.)

 

[Frank Robert]

4)I don't respect religious beliefs of others, as these can be wrong and harmful. I

Ideas like that lead to religious fanaticism in the form of extremism. The US already has a fast growing Christian nationalism with evangelicals conned by a model of all that is anti-christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ideas like that lead to religious fanaticism in the form of extremism.

Religious fanaticism? extremism?

What happened to good ole separatism?

 

[Sophrosyne]

You write as if understanding and accepting the findings of a scientific endeavor is a religion. It is not.

[BTW people do escape from the beliefs imprinted upon them in childhood. Many of us here have. That's why my "faith indicator" in the info box doesn't say "Catholic". (Glad I escaped that train wreck.)

Overall I am a science and math person. My favorite subjects in school were math and science and I usually made straight A's in both subjects. Evolution stinks of faith often instead of science and faith is a central part of religion. When you view things or are taught things without including intellectually honest skepticism and confront problems with facts instead of opinions it is not science. I don't see this with evolution consistently.
As this isn't the thread topic and you and I aren't the OP I won't go into depth more than this as examples and such would be too tedious for my interest in it.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Ideas like that lead to religious fanaticism in the form of extremism. The US already has a fast growing Christian nationalism with evangelicals conned by a model of all that is anti-christian.

You are contradicting yourself here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Overall I am a science and math person. My favorite subjects in school were math and science and I usually made straight A's in both subjects. Evolution stinks of faith often instead of science and faith is a central part of religion. When you view things or are taught things without including intellectually honest skepticism and confront problems with facts instead of opinions it is not science. I don't see this with evolution consistently.
As this isn't the thread topic and you and I aren't the OP I won't go into depth more than this as examples and such would be too tedious for my interest in it.

Calling a science "stinking of faith" doesn't make it so. (Though I do agree that faith has a bad stench.) Neither evolution nor abiogenesis is "faith-based".

 

[Sophrosyne]

Calling a science "stinking of faith" doesn't make it so. (Though I do agree that faith has a bad stench.) Neither evolution nor abiogenesis is "faith-based".

If you can't prove it in a laboratory then you plainly just have to believe it.

 

[Frank Robert]

If you can't prove it in a laboratory then you plainly just have to believe it.

Its interesting that you got A's in hs science when all you are able to demonstrate here is your ignorance of science. c'est la vie!

 

[Sophrosyne]

Its interesting that you got A's in hs science when all you are able to demonstrate here is your ignorance of science. c'est la vie!

You are welcome to prove a fish becomes a cat in a lab for me.