@mlb62 said
having been raised a Catholic ,I've always wondered about the Holy Ghost. Like who the heck is this entity ? Now I believe it was the church's attempt to understand the Extraterrestrial being who came from outer space !! All religions are based on their experiences with ETs !!

The Spirit of God.

@wildgrass said
The casualty ratio is 30:1 so it is understandable that kids, raised with handfuls of participation trophies, who were born after 9/11, would not fully comprehend this multi generational conflict.

Americans are buying bombs that are being dropped on civilians on purpose. Voters should be asking questions.

My first questions are why did Hamas go into homes and kill families on Oct 7th? Why, was it necessary to rape, kill children, sweep the country side killing so many? What did those families do to deserve that?

@zahlanzi said
yes, dumbass. the internet is filled with asholes calling for the death of any kind of group, persons, having dreams about commiting any manner of crime.

to be a genocidal maniac you have to commit genocide. And you can be a genocidal maniac while shouting over and over that you are defending yourself, that you don't mean to kill civilians, that you simply commit oopsie ...[text shortened]... e requirement for calling a genocide for what it is? The mass murderer admitting to his mass murder?

So why are you calling me names I am not calling for the death of anyone in any degree? You don’t think claiming solidarity with a genocidal group puts you in the same class having murdering others as a goal?

War is ugly the death of humanity from innocence to combatants happens, indiscriminately launching missiles and rockets in neighborhoods being done to Israel I don’t see any outrage for that.

Hate really has blinded many that they can condemn the atrocities they see by those they dislike, but justify most things done to those that they dislike.

@kevcvs57 said
“ One side is using genocide as a stated goal and it isn't Israel.”
Err extremists on one side stating an impossible aim for effect and the ultra right img government of Netanyahu actually in the process of committing actual genocide
Oh well you were only 100% wrong

You believe anyone calling for genocide against anyone is not a genocidal maniac?

@zahlanzi said
they're idiots and israel is still committing genocide.

assuming this actually happened and you're not doing a thought experiment

Bad things are happening, and people are dying. Genocide is a term used for when everyone is being killed for who they are, typically that is not thrown about when deaths are more in line with horrific collateral damage. Moreover, if both sets of combatants wanted to avoid those types of deaths, none of them would be hiding where when conflict finds them it is unavoidable.

One side is using genocide as a stated goal and it isn't Israel.

@zahlanzi said
they're idiots and israel is still committing genocide.

assuming this actually happened and you're not doing a thought experiment

https://nypost.com/2024/04/18/us-news/columbia-university-protester-yells-were-all-hamas-video/

Are these genocidal maniacs or peaceful protesters?

@pettytalk said
You certainly are correct on others giving interpretations. That rambunctious one short of a thousand has. But what is yours?

What is a brother, or a sister, or a mother? Must it be necessarily a Christian?

Before there were Christians there was Christ. What was Christ's take on who were his brothers and sisters, and mother?

While Jesus was still talking to the ...[text shortened]... two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFR7tb61W1A

Well the top two Commandments are to love the Lord and each other, looking at the 10 commandments doing those two would fulfill the them.

Couple of points first Jesus was the only person who did that, we fall short. Second point when I read about all of the hate in the news (which was what prompted me for this) I am amazed about the grace of God being offered.

Last point the why God love is, is why I am amazed! God’s love always is for the best for the one loved, even at a cost to Himself. So He did what was necessary for us to be saved, but that will never force someone to Him that wants nothing to do with Him.

His love is given it does not require anything reciprocal return (meaning there is no, I will love you if you do X ) any response which causes us to love Him, it will be because He first loved us!

@rajk999 said
Well here again you are ignoring all the discussions we have had in the last 15 years or more. You have quoted this same verse many many times using it to show that people who disagree with you, hate you and therefore are condemned by God.

Where in the world did you see me say this was about people hating me? You sure do insert meaning into text that is not there, can’t you just read what is there without looking for a hidden meaning?

Here we go again speaks more about you!

@rajk999 said
There are several kinds of love in the bible ..
- the kind between man and woman
- the kind between family members
- the kind between friends aka brotherly love
- the kind God has for mankind. [Agape]

This passage in John refers to agape, which is the greatest kind. Paul in 1 Cor 13 has a very detailed description of agape but the word is translated 'charity'.

Cha ...[text shortened]... would be an unreasonable God to expect his creation to dispense with the 'hatred' which he created.

All I did was quote a verse in several translations you are the one giving an interpretation not me; moreover, this is a letter from John.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

"Scientific methods are in part the issue here because we use that as an example of explanatory platform that implements methodological quality controls and regulations in a proper way, and we use this as a point of contrast to show just how impoverished is the Lennoxian alternative approach."

Of course there are accomplished scientists who are strongly religious — nothing I have said implies otherwise. But they accomplished what they did in the field of science despite their religious convictions. The history of mankind is littered with examples of religious “explanations” for worldly phenomena that were totally wrong and later supplanted with scientific ones; there are no examples going in the other direction. In understanding our universe, science has done all the lifting and religion has done jack squat whenever it did not just get in the way. Lennox, to his credit, admits most of this with his discourse on the failure of gods of the gap; somehow he thinks his approach is better at imparting explanation but that is the part he gets wrong."

I'm not suggesting anything bad about science, never have, it has limitations I rely on it as much as the next guy. You must start with a known good to troubleshoot if you don't know what good looks like any claim is as good as the next.

Junk science like disinformation is defined by what you like and dislike, they are not about the methodologies used, the methods can be the same, and the outcomes can still be characterized as junk or true science. So it is not really about the method looking for the best explanation, but one's prior assumptions. You will not trust science if you are not willing to accept the possibility that your assumptions can be wrong. If you can acknowledge design in something you see, but reject what your eyes see and call it an illusion, it isn't evidence or science that is causing you to hold onto your beliefs.

If it is only because of the conclusions that one comes up that will define something as either science or junk science, then the methods of any experiment will be meaningless. What will called science or junk science will be the faith of the looking to see what they want to see. Defining what you read to be true is information, misinformation, sound science, or junk science your faith is what you are going to use to make that judgment call. You walk into every experience with faith, these are truths, and with them, we can confirm what else is true, that is walking in faith.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

"As I said, the discussion here regards what counts as explanation, and I have been on topic throughout (unlike your “faith” drivel). If you cannot see how discussion of background evidence for the existence of the entity that you are invoking in your emergent explanation is relevant, then maybe that is why you and Lennox are not doing it properly. Let’s go back to his example of a pot of boiling water. One proposed explanation could be that a human wanted some tea and took actions to bring it about; another could be that an invisible elf wanted some tea and took actions to bring it about. You see any problem that plagues the latter but not the former?"

I don't think you even have a clue about what 'faith' means, you more than likely just have redefined the word to make it something about blind faith in religious terms, redefining words to belittle what I have said about it is sad. Faith has to do with fidelity which should also be applied to everything we trust from how we look at science, best friends, banks, or anything else we take on faith.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

"There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that and instead opt for “evidence” in the form of Behe’s claims that have been refuted soundly. That is what is pathetic here. Your selective endorsements and dismissals of the science are scandalous. "

You brought up Behe, not me, why you are going on off on what I think about him is a mystery to me.

@lemonjello said

No need to respond, you are pathetic,

You conveniently truncated my response which clarified that the reason there is no need to respond is because it has already been refuted. Should I respond to models regarding phlogiston and geocentricism too?

There is a mountain of good evolutionary science refuted by nothing and somehow you dismiss all that a ...[text shortened]... view invokes the existence of an immaterial divine disembodied mind. I wish you Godspeed with that.

Evidence is all fine and good, but what we say that the evidence means is what matters. You leave out the justification that is what matters not that we see things we think prove our points. There assumptions come into play big time, things taking on faith.

It isn't a matter of translation:

1 John 4:20
New International Version
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

New Living Translation
If someone says, “I love God,” but hates a fellow believer, that person is a liar; for if we don’t love people we can see, how can we love God, whom we cannot see?

English Standard Version
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Berean Standard Bible
If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

Berean Literal Bible
If anyone should say, "I love God," and should hate his brother, he is a liar. For the one not loving his brother, whom he has seen, is not able to love God, whom he has not seen.

King James Bible
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

New King James Version
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

New American Standard Bible
If someone says, “I love God,” and yet he hates his brother or sister, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother and sister whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

NASB 1995
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

NASB 1977
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Legacy Standard Bible
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Amplified Bible
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates (works against) his [Christian] brother he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Christian Standard Bible
If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet hates his brother or sister, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother or sister whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen.

American Standard Version
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But if a man will say, “I love God”, and he hates his brother, he is lying; for he who does not love his brother who is visible, how is it possible for him to love God who is invisible?

Contemporary English Version
But if we say we love God and don't love each other, we are liars. We cannot see God. So how can we love God, if we don't love the people we can see?

Douay-Rheims Bible
If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?

English Revised Version
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Whoever says, "I love God," but hates another believer is a liar. People who don't love other believers, whom they have seen, can't love God, whom they have not seen.

Good News Translation
If we say we love God, but hate others, we are liars. For we cannot love God, whom we have not seen, if we do not love others, whom we have seen.

International Standard Version
Whoever says, "I love God," but hates his brother is a liar. The one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love the God whom he has not seen.

Literal Standard Version
if anyone may say, “I love God,” and may hate his brother, he is a liar; for he who is not loving his brother whom he has seen, how is he able to love God whom he has not seen?

Majority Standard Bible
If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, how can he love God, whom he has not seen?

New American Bible
If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

NET Bible
If anyone says "I love God" and yet hates his fellow Christian, he is a liar, because the one who does not love his fellow Christian whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

New Revised Standard Version
Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.

New Heart English Bible
If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Webster's Bible Translation
If a man sayeth, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen?

Weymouth New Testament
If any one says that he loves God, while he hates his brother man, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother man whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.

World English Bible
If a man says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who doesn’t love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?

Young's Literal Translation
if any one may say -- 'I love God,' and his brother he may hate, a liar he is; for he who is not loving his brother whom he hath seen, God -- whom he hath not seen -- how is he able to love?