TGHusker

You got that right. Makes me think - Hey we are Nebraska, what are we doing wt a rookie head coach, a rookie DC, Rookie OC, converted grad assistants. Our standard was way to low.

agreed

Artificial Intelligence taking over the world seems like sci fi stuff from the 60s. But some believe it is just around the corner - literally. How concern are you that AI will get beyond our ability to control it - where it ends up controlling us? Is the song "In the Year 2525" coming before its time? Will we humans 'de-evolve' as we use less and less of our own brains and muscles? Will the frozen custard stands go out of business because robots don't eat frozen custard? How will robotics help or hinder your career? In my world of corp credit, there are more and more tools available from a computing, analysis perspective that it has helped me to become more efficient and lower costs. As an adjunct teacher, technology has enhanced the classroom experience, bridged distance - making brick and mortar buildings not a requirement for "school to happen". The fully "robotic" classroom may be in the near future, and in some ways is available today. Students are able to access a 'cafeteria' of subject matter and be able to be both the 'teacher' and the student. The faculty may become like that clerk at the 'self help' cashier lines. Just watching over the process in case there are questions or problems. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/steve-wozniak-future-ai-scary-154700881.html Machines to replace almost half of jobs in 20 years: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/sci-tech/robots-to-replace-almost-half-of-jobs-over-next-20-years-expert-20150323-1m5oei.html

Knapp, I don't have an issue with your post. I would agree that many 'church practices' have been borrowed from pagan sources and visa versa. We all know Christmas isn't the actual birth date of Jesus for example and we could site other practices. My post and the book by Nash pertains to central doctrine - Christ's resurrection for example. Perhaps the current home church movement may be the closest thing to the 1st century church. I recognized some of the authors you note in that regards. I have found that different people have different "Pathways to God" (see Gary Thomas book with that title). Some find great solace & meaning in the high church liturgy and others in the very informal home church setting. I think you will find more of those pagan issues associated with the more deeply organized institutional church. I think any organization (religious, civic, etc) looses its 'purity' over time as it rubs elbow with the culture at large. The challenge, which I think many of the authors you site are addressing, is to restore the foundation of why the organization exists and bring life back into it.

Examples please https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Parallels_between_Jesus_and_Horus_an_Egyptian_God.pdf This is just the similarities of the Jesus story to Horus. Not trying to start an argument, just noting that there are other religions that were around long before chrisitianity. And they all have similar ideas, so to think that 'yours' is the only right one... I just think it's kind of arrogant. Yeah, figured you'd link something with supposed Horus parallels. They're cherrypicking straw men. I won't waste my time debunking all of them, because it is, in fact, a waste of time, but just as a few examples: Horus wasn't born of a virgin. He was born of a magically fashioned golden phallus by Isis, who then impregnated herself. There is no "Anup the Baptizer" in any Egyptian mythos. Anywhere. That is the brain child of Gerald Massey, who happens to not have any reputable regard by pretty much anyone other than people trying to invent Christ/Horus parallels. Horus was born sometime in Oct/Nov, and there is no record of when Jesus was actually born - Christians later adopted the winter solstice in order to celebrate and worship in safety from persecution. Horus didn't have twelve disciples - he had four demigods that followed him around, and some traditions have 16 human followers, and some blacksmiths and stuff, but nowhere is there mention of 12 disciples or anything close. I really hope you're not trying to pass this off as your own. Of course not, I'm no scholar on ancient Egyptian mythology. Might I suggest: The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? (The Student Library) Paperback – February, 2003 by Ronald H. Nash (Author) Formerly titled Christianity and the Hellenistic World. A critical examination of the claim that Christianity borrowed some of its essential beliefs and practices from Hellenistic philosophy, Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Gnosticism. "Professor Nash has written a lucid and superb book." (Professor Edwin Yamauchi, Miami University - Ohio) http://www.amazon.com/The-Gospel-Greeks-Testament-Thought/dp/0875525598 Josh McDowell in his book "A Ready Defense" does a good summary of the these issues and quotes Nash and others extensively. From Amazon, a reviewer of the Nash book had this to say: 17 of 20 people found the following review helpful 5Jason Santiago ByJason Santiago "J_santiago"on September 19, 2006 Format: Paperback On the surface, many folks might think that the topic is very obscure or not all that important. And while it's true that the subject matter is somewhat complicated and can initially appear pretty irrelevant to present day Christianity, it is nonetheless a topic with enormous present day relevance and deserves to be explored. In a nutshell, this book attempts to analyze whether early Christianity was influenced by pagan philosophical systems or by ideas that existed in the pagan mystery religions. There are a number of reasons why such an examination is so important. First, as this book mentions, a link of influence of paganism on early Christianity has been a common tactic among various folks in academia who are looking to discredit the Christian faith in front of an impressionable audience, and while not mentioning it, the Jesus Seminar has also been diligent in advancing such arguments in an effort to dedeify Jesus. And the reason is clear. One can make major inroads in discrediting the authenticity of Christianity if they can demonstrate, for example, that the resurrection of Jesus as described in the Gospels was really a mythical story copied from allegedly similar recountings in the pagan mystery religions. If this could be demonstrated, any number of additional negative ideas could be argued with greater force, such as that Jesus wasn't really God because the resurrection recountings of the Gospels are not historical but mythical and parallel other myths of the time, or that Jesus is no more special or unique than other supposed gods or deities in other religions. It is clear that the ramifications of these kind of theories, if proven, would be devastating to Christianity. Thus, the importance of this book. Nash carefully divides the book into 3 sections; analyzing the possibility that early Christianity was influenced by pagan philosophy such as Platonism or Stoicism, analyzing the possibility that early Christianity borrowed some of its stories from the pagan mystery religions such as Isis/Osiris or Mithra, and analyzing whether Christianity was influenced by Gnosticism. In each case, Nash does a good job of beginning his analysis by clearly defining the terms of the debate, and fairly representing the claims made by those who positively assert pagan influence on Christianity. These introductions give the reader a very good starting point for seeing how these arguments, when left unscrutinized, can on the surface appear to be compelling. By presenting the arguments fairly and completely, Nash does a good job of peaking the interest of the reader to read on in order to find out whether these arguments really hold water once we get below the surface. And particularly in the analyses of pagan philosophy and the mystery religions, Nash's analyses are very detailed and meticulous. Nash's analyses are very effective in meticulously discrediting these arguments and in most cases, showing very clearly the lazy scholarship that often fuels such arguments. By doing this, Nash not only puts these arguments in their place, he affirms the historical reliability, uniqueness, and truth of the Christian faith as described in the New Testament and clearly demonstrates that there is absolutely no evidence of a pagan influence on Christianity, and in fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest a Christian influence on paganism. In summary, after one reads this book, it is likely that they may scratch their heads in wonder when one thinks about why this book had to be written, given the lazy and even contrived scholarship that is the basis for so many of the arguments affirming a pagan influence on early Christianity. One might reasonably wonder how such ideas ever had any credibility to start with when Nash so completely destroys the arguments with very simple facts and analysis. I applaud Nash for being so thorough in the topics covered and in the analysis. There are over 30 pages of footnotes at the end of the book for the reader who is interested in conducting additional research and examining other pertinent resources. I completely concur with what Nash says in this book when commenting on the alleged influence of the mystery religions on early Christianity, "These..arguments against Christian syncretism help us understand why biblical scholars today seldom claim any early Christian dependence on the mysteries. They constitute an impressive collection of reasons why scholars in such other fields as history and philosophy should rethink their methods and conclusions and finally put such views to rest." This is an excellent book, and one that can greatly help any Christian easily and effectively counter the claims of pagan influence on the early faith. A 'must have' for any apologetics collection.

From early last century: qThe London Times Essay : “What’s Wrong with the World” Perhaps the shortest Essay in history: Dear Sirs: I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton (If you don't know who GK Chesterton is- look him up)

Not to but I found this article interesting. You will see a lot of staff members previously associated wt NU. But outside of Ron Brown & Carl P, most were grad assistants What I found amusing is Bo's cap - the picture is one of him wt a Husker cap on. This was on the YSU's official sports web page. Does the program not have enough money to buy Bo a new hat? Maybe it was all of the NU references in the article - giving credibility to the program. The article states that this in an impressive staff- appears to me to have very limited experience outside of a few people - but perhaps it is par for the course for a school like YSU http://www.ysusports.com/sports/fball/2015-16/releases/coaching-staff

good interview

BRB I agee wt you on Fannie and Freddie. They have been around so long, I suspect there is some money changing hands under the table for this to be put forward. As you know, I tend to be 'small' govt conservative but govt has a vital role in serving to protect the small from the big and work for the common good of all. I agree the bigger these 'too big to fail' institutions get, the greater the hidden danger they present to the society as a whole. When a few big institutions can 'corner the market' on banks, investments and insurance - where can the individual go when they fail or when they unfairly control?

The agree with this statement more and more. This also lends it self to VectorVictor's statement about moderation. With all of the money in politics, no one politician can hardly afford to be compromising, to be moderate in some areas, conservative in others and liberal in others - they have to be "all in' one camp or another otherwise the money stops. With all of the money buying off candidates instead of being put to 'real good' in the society, I wonder if we'd be better off if we could remove all of the 'franking' privileges of Congress as well as all foreign 'fact finding' trips, etc and that money used to somehow equally finance federal campaigns. That may be an impossibility and a mess to manage but perhaps a spending cap. Then that get's into 'free speech' issue like the Corp free speech issue ruled on by the SC a few years ago. I don't know what the answer is but the status quo is a problem

Got to agree with this Maybe all of us on huskerboard should lead the way and take over govt

Is this a good thing or not? I'm not an economist so I have yet to form an opinion. I wonder when replace something that was put in place due to a crisis, if we are not in effect setting ourselves back up for a fall again. The deeper the crisis, normally the greater the swing of the pendulum back the other way to correct the crisis. Did Dodd-Frank go to far? My 1st gut check reaction: who will this legislation benefit? Follow the money, or the lobbyists and see if we can find a hidden motive. Repubs would like to gut Dodd-Frank. Like Sarbanes-Oxley before it, many repubs see D-F as an over reaction and overly cumbersome law. Both acts were initiated after a deep financial crises hit our economy. Within the proposed legislation, Congress would return bank insolvency/ bankruptcy action back to the bankruptcy courts. They want to also move the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau out from under the Federal Reserve & its budgetary control to Congress' budgetary control 3rd they want to privatize Fannie and Freddie full article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/house-republicans-aim-dodd-frank-160833670.html A part of the article here: 1.They have said the measure perpetuates government bailouts, and that any collapse of a large firm should be left to a bankruptcy court. In the past, Republicans were unable to get any traction repealing the measure, largely because the U.S. Senate was controlled by Democrats. The plan still faces major hurdles, including a likely veto from President Barack Obama if it ever reaches his desk. Nevertheless, Republicans in the House are making a fresh push targeting bank resolution and other major Dodd-Frank provisions now that the Senate is also controlled by Republicans. 2. In addition to targeting resolution powers by banking regulators, the Republican budget plan also takes aim at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a new regulatory agency that serves to protect consumers from predatory loan practices by credit-card and mortgage servicing companies. The bureau's budget is not appropriated by Congress and is funded through the Federal Reserve. That has irked Republicans because it gives them less control over the regulator. 3. In addition to targeting the Dodd-Frank law, Tuesday's plan also calls for privatizing housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were both seized by the government in 2008 after they nearly collapsed beneath the weight of bad loans.

You didn't know that? was invented to accompany the Rueben sandwich Reuben starts with "R" and so does Runza......... MMMMMMMMMMM 2 of my all time fav sandwiches - if you could call a Runza a sandwich - wish they would have in Okla

From Knapp's original post: I thought they did a really good job updating the Bourne books into modern-day thrillers. Initially I didn't like Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, but by about midway through the first movie I was on board. Good stuff. I agree with this. It wasn't so much that I didn't like Matt Damon initially, it was more like - I'm surprised by him in the role and then it got to be - he is great in the role. Again I'll use my wife in this review. She isn't a history buff nor does she like 'violent' movies, however, she is so intrigue by the way Matt plays the role in all 3 movies that at the end of the 3rd movie when it shows that he is alive (like who would doubt) and he swims away (sorry if I spoiled it now ) she gives out a spontaneous cheer (sorry long grammatically incorrect sentence - I write like I think). The Bourne series is my favorite action series of all time. There have been times during the Christmas season when the whole family is over (2 sons and wives) were we'd watch the 1st movie, play games, watch the 2nd, play games, then watch the 3rd - an all day Bourne fest.

This may not fall in the usual genre of books to film that Knapp was looking for but my wife & I are currently watching the John Adams HBO series based on David McCullough's book. David is one of my favorite historians and all of this books are very well written and hold your interest. The HBO version does an excellent job of capturing the excitement, danger, political peril and intrigue of those days and is a good reflection of the book. For my wife to be interested in history, it must be done well. She has enjoyed the history and I enjoy seeing McCullough's John Adams book coming alive. It would be nice if they followed up wt a Truman movie based on David's Truman book.

No thank you. Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems. Congress does have the responsibility to advice and consent and approve treaties. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. Perhaps the admin is going for a non-binding agreement?? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/did-obama-go-non-binding-deal-iran-dodge-senate-state-dep-t-won-t Regarding Israel blowing up Iranian facilities: up to debate as to what lengths a country can go to in order to guarantee its survival. Israel sees the Iranian program as a direct threat - not to mention Iran's sponsorship of terror groups bent on Israel's destruction - not to mention #2 Iran leaders' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. What might the USA do if Cuba actually ended up wt Soviet missiles or if Venezuela (a known anti-USA govt) was developing terror groups or a missile program to attack the USA? We would act out of self preservation. I get your overall point however: terrorism of one kind breads perceived reactionary terrorist activity of another kind. Thus my point: What good is a peace agreement between the USA and Iran without Israel (and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - who basically with Iran represent the whole region) in the deal. Other than oil and our defense treaty with Israel, we have no skin in the game. The other countries have their survival in the game. Find me a case in the last 200 years of Congress going behind any President's back when there are conversations going on. Again, the points raised earlier were cases when the sitting President had refused to talk with those leaders at all. Strigori, regarding the bold, the assumption behind your statement is that negotiations are always preferable to not talking. This isn't always the case. Lets look at the 2 Reagan cases in the list above. 1. That time “liberal lion” Ted Kennedy proposed a secret alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat President Ronald Reagan A 1983 KGB memo uncovered after the fall of the Soviet Union described a meeting between former KGB officials and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney (Sen. Kennedy’s confidant) in Moscow. Tunney asked the KGB to convey a message to Yuri Andropov, the Soviet leader, proposing a campaign in which Kennedy would visit Moscow to offer talking points to Andropov and Soviet officials on how to attack Reagan’s policies to U.S. audiences. According to the memo, Kennedy, through the intermediary, offered to help facilitate a media tour in a proposed visit by Andropov to the U.S. Kennedy’s hope, as conveyed by the letter, was to hurt Reagan politically on foreign policy at a time when the economic recovery was working in his favor. In this case, we have a Senator inviting an enemy to interfer in US internal politics but it goes deeper than this. Reagan knew that the old negotiating methods & cold war policy (MAD) had to change. He recognized that the Soviet Union was a corrupt (evil) system that enslaves men. Maintaining status quo (negotiating arms deals that would be broken time and again wt the Soviets, deals that gave them more power) would not solve the greater problem of the Soviet system and its aggression. Reagan would not negotiate on the Soviet's terms. Thus his hawk like stance to break their system. He knew they were a house of cards and our arms deals should no longer prop up that house. Reagon also demonstrated that it is better to walk away from talks than to accept a bad deal - 1986 Reykjavík Summit. In the end a better agreement was created in 1987. 2. “Dear Comandante” In 1984, 10 Democratic lawmakers — including the then majority leader and House Intelligence Committee chairman – sent a letter to Nicaraguan Communist leader Daniel Ortega known as the “Dear Comandante” letter. In it, the lawmakers criticized Reagan’s policy toward Nicaragua and whitewashed the record of violence by the Sandinista communists. He we have Ortega, communist leader who is Soviet tool spreading his form of communism in Central America. Negotiations with this guy would gain nothing. Supporting the contras and the other opposition groups was the only way to bring change. The democratic lawmakers letter and visit by Kerry and i believe Harken undermined the strategy to stop the rise of communism in central America. One may be able to argue that the in the case of Iraq and Syria under both Bush admins, we were past the point of negotiation when the dems 'went over the president's head'. Regardless, I think negotiation should always be the 1st option if there is a chance of a fair and balanced agreement and in which 'liberty and freedom' is the winner in the long term. But there is a time, when negotiation is not always the best option and other tactics (not necessarily war - sanctions, economic pressures - Reagan's deal with the Saudi's to drive oil prices down crippled the Soviet's revenue stream at the same time Reagan was building up our military - the Soviets could not keep up)

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/10/not-everyone-is-in-tom-cotton-fan-club From Politico http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html So we have a guy who wants to end talks with Iran, he has said directly that he wants talks to fail, calls for new sanctions, and the mentality behind his anti-nuclear views with Iran is to do exactly what he wants, or military answers will be used. He has openly called for an increase in spending to give more weapons to Israel. The defense contractors are not inviting him anywhere because he's a funny and entertaining guy. They want things and he is open to giving it to them. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the end game. Good info and thanks. Like I said, I don't know his motive and I don't know his history - even if he is next door in Ark. If this is his motive - then the letter is off based (assumption being that this is the motive behind all of the other signatures on the letter - not a far stretch of the imagination there). I'm tired of the MIC running things and using US foreign policy to place suffering on others while padding the MIC's bottom line.

Here is a funny story -- Dawkins prays to 'God' https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Y9bR3zcAcDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NDDC1-_e7hI

A couple of short videos. I also saw that Dawkins had a video like Fry's. Same argument. BTW: we won't be solving this problem on this forum. People much smarter than us have been arguing these points for centuries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=it7mhQ8fEq0#t=94 <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/it7mhQ8fEq0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

another person's post on the subject http://www.whypain.org/did_god_create_evil.html Did God Create Evil? Or Does Evil Prove God Does Not Exist? The following is a quote that appears on a number of atheist web sites. It has been in atheist literature for the forty years that this program we call “Does God Exist?” has been in existence: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot …or he can but does not want to, …or he cannot and does not want to, …or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent. If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, and if evil still exists, then God must not be God. God does not exist. How can God be benevolent and omnipotent and still allow evil to exist?There are many approaches to the subject of evil. Modern atheists not only deny the existence of God, but also the existence of evil. Richard Dawkins, perhaps the leading twenty-first century spokesman for atheism says: In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music. - Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden, page 133. Trying to deny the existence of evil does not eliminate it. It is like trying to convince a two-year-old about to get a shot that it is not going to hurt. The two-year-old knows better from experience, and trying to deny it will not make the pain go away. Most of us have had enough things happen in our lives that have convinced us, like the two year old, that evil is real. There is much that lies outside of DNA, and even DNA does not require mutations and alterations in it to make it automatically doomed to bring pain and suffering into the lives of human beings. The fact is that evil does exist. It is not a substance. You cannot take a pile of evil and measure it in any way. In fact it is not something God created. There is no passage in the Bible that says God created evil. Passages like Isaiah 45:7 were translated in the King James as "evil," but more modern translations use the more accurate rendering of the word, which is "disaster." A disaster is not intrinsically evil. The Nile River flooded every year for centuries. This was unquestionably a disaster for the people who lived in the Nile delta, but it was not evil. It made Egypt the bread basket of the ancient world as it fertilized and rejuvenated the soils of the area. Evil is not something God sat down and deliberately and maliciously created so that humans could experience pain and suffering. So if evil is not a product and creation of God, why does it exist and why does God allow it to exist? Why is evil not a proof that God is not really God but rather a creation of man. The problem is that atheists and many believers have never stopped to deal with the questions, “What is the purpose of man's existence?” “Why are we here?” “Why do we exist?” If you assume that man is a chance event, then you automatically deny there is a purpose in our existence. Huxley, representing the atheist view, said it well: We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to Earth, or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents. Julian Huxley, The Human Degree, J.B. Lippincott Co., 1976. The atheist view of man reduces man to an insignificant dot in the grand scheme of things -- just one of an infinite number of accidents that has no purpose and no reason to exist. The views of Huxley and Dawkins and their followers demean man and offer a very negative and pessimistic view of man with no hope and no value placed on human life above that of any other life on the planet. The biblical concept of man is just the opposite. Man is presented in the Bible as something created in the image of God. Man has the life force as do other living things, but man also has a component that sets us apart from every other thing on the planet -- both living and nonliving. This component allows man to be creative, and to be able to express that creativity in art, music, and worship of God. It also is what enables man to encounter evil. Evil results from our capacity to choose to reject good. When mankind ate of the forbidden fruit, a uniqueness was activated which enabled us to make choices. The fruit was not an apple, it was "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 2:9). I would not be so presumptuous as to pretend I understand all that this involves. Scientists have been trying to understand the unique characteristics of humans from the time of Adam, and we still do not understand all that makes us human. In biblical terms, however, it is simply man's capacity to make choices that affect other humans. Deciding whether to pull a weed out of your garden is not a decision that involves good or evil. Deciding whether to pull the trigger of a gun pointed at someone is. Evil involves making choices, and mankind has uniquely been given the capacity to make choices that involve good and evil. How we make these choices is a reflection of what we believe about ourselves and our relationship to everything in the cosmos. An atheist like Carl Sagan would limit what he believes about that relationship. Sagan was fond of saying: The cosmos is everything that is or was or ever will be. Carl Sagan, Cosmos, Random House, New York, 1980, page 257. That view excludes anything that is not a part of the universe we observe. It limits the effect of our choices to what we observe with our senses. That is the easy way out, but there is evidence from every discipline known to man that there is more to the cosmos and to our existence than what we perceive through our senses. In the Bible there are references to things beyond what our senses perceive. Ephesians 6: 12 says it best: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." We do not understand all of what those entities involve, but their existence and effect upon man is undeniable. The purpose of man's existence involves the battle Ephesians 6:12 describes. The book of Job gives us a spectator's view of man's existence and how one man's existence serves as a battle ground for the struggle between good and evil. Job was created for this purpose, and in Job 42:5 he rejoices in having come to an understanding of why he was created. This is quite a contrast to Job 3:3-11 where Job laments the fact that he was ever born. Each of us can take the name "Job" out of the book of Job and write our name in place of it. We are all Job! Virtually every science fiction story in existence focuses its message on the struggle between good and evil, and we all seem to understand and profit from such literature. Yet when we become the prime players in the same kind of struggle that science fiction describes, we seem to find the concept too hard to grasp. The atheist statement at the start of our article then radiates a failure to have any comprehension of why we exist. It is not that God is not omnipotent. It is not that He does not care. What God is focused on is His purpose in creating man. He will not compromise that purpose by interfering in the natural consequences of the choices that humans make. Sin leads to death, and God tells us that it is appointed unto man once to die (Hebrews 9:27). We are told that we will reap what we sow (Galatians 6:6-8). God can and will abolish evil. The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 makes it clear that a "great gulf" will be placed between good and evil across which nothing can pass. The greatest act of benevolence known to man is the fact that God promises that we will eventually be in a place where "there will be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Revelation 21:4). Claiming that the existence of evil is a proof that there is no God is an unfortunate demonstration of a lack of understanding of why we are here. The ultimate beauty of the picture the Bible gives us of God and the question of evil is that when God came to the Earth in a physical form and saw how much sin pains, and what agony humans suffer because of the consequences of sin, God burst into tears (John 11:35). We serve a God who cares. As the writer of Hebrews states it, "For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). - John N. Clayton

This is too big of a topic to answer with just a few posts. There are many excellent Christian resources that answer Mr Fry's basic assertion - that if there is a god, he is not worthy of my presence because of all of the suffering he has placed on man kind. One book I that I might suggest is Randy Alcorn's book - "If God is good ...." Timothy Keller's book - "The Reason for God". There are many more and also some coming from the deeper world of theology, philosophy or apologetics. A quick web search I found one person's answer - not exhaustive http://answers.org/theology/suffering.html If God Is Good, Why Is There So Much Suffering in the World? Bob and Gretchen Passantino, ©Copyright 1997Each of us has watched a loved one die, been the victim of a crime, lived among the poverty-stricken, or in some way been confronted with the reality of suffering. Human history sometimes seems like one long chronicle of suffering and despair. In the midst of suffering we cry out, Why is light given to those in misery, and life to the bitter of the soul, to those who long for death that does not come, who search for it more than for hidden treasure. . . . For sighing comes to me instead of food; my groans pour out like water. What I feared has come upon me; what I dreaded has happened to me. I have no peace, no quietness; I have no rest, but only turmoil. [Job 3:20-21, 24-26] Why is there suffering? Why are the innocent victimized? Is there purpose in pain? Is there any escape? For the Christian, who believes that God is all-good and all-powerful, answers to these questions are especially important. Skeptics frequently challenge Christians with the problem of a good God allowing suffering. Usually their argument says, “If God is all-powerful, he could prevent or eliminate suffering. If God is all-good, he would not want his creation to suffer. Since you say God is both, suffering should not exist. In fact, however, we see suffering all around us and experience it ourselves. Therefore, God doesn’t exist, or he’s not all-powerful, or he’s not all-good.” First, we need to distinguish between philosophical and personal engagement with suffering. When someone is in the midst of anguish, all the logic and truth in the world is incomplete without a demonstration of compassionate love. Answers are not merely conclusions of mental exercises, they should have consequences in our lives. Second, we need to consider the consequences of accepting the skeptic’s alternatives: Suffering proves that God does not exist, or He is not all-powerful, or He is not all-good. If God does not exist, then all of existence, including our suffering, has no enduring value, purpose, or goal. If God is not all-powerful, then we have no hope that suffering will ever be eliminated. If God is not all-good, then to pain and despair we must add the threat of immanent divine sadism. Each of these alternatives is at least as problematic as the Christian alternative, so the skeptic has merely exchanged one answer he doesn’t like for others equally unpleasant. The skeptic has not solved the problem of suffering merely by refusing to solve it. We should judge answers by truth, not emotion. Third, we need to understand that many problems with theology come from problems with personal world views and values. For example, the pleasure of helping someone who is needy has absolutely no value to the person to whom self-indulgence is the highest good. Many people struggle with the problem of God and suffering because they reject a Christian world view. Avoiding suffering has become preferable to learning patience; immediate gratification means more than self-discipline; self-gratification is more important than sharing; and physical pleasure is superior to spiritual joy. Fourth, the skeptic assumes parts of the Christian world view in order to indict the Christian God, but he is unwilling to acknowledge the other parts of the Christian world view that answer his indictments. He assumes a standard of “good” that is absolute and eternal (and, therefore, cannot have its source in changing, finite humans), but denies the existence of the absolute and eternal. In a non-theistic world where values are social conventions, survival mechanisms, majority opinions, or assertions of the most powerful, there can be no absolute, eternal values. “Good” as a social convention is merely what a society declares to be good; in one society it might be eating one’s enemies, in another it may be loving one’s enemies. “Good” as a survival mechanism could include killing off imperfect, non-productive members of the species, such those with less than average intelligence or poor eyesight, or restricting reproduction to the physical and mental elite; etc. If the skeptic wants to borrow the Christian definition of values as absolute and eternal, then he can’t reject the Christian explanation of suffering which is consistent with such values. If the Christian world view is considered, there are a variety of approaches to the question of God and suffering. Biblical convictions include (1) suffering does not originate with God and will be eliminated at some point; (2) God works good in the midst of suffering; (3) not all pain is suffering in the moral sense; (4) and physical, transient suffering and death are relatively inconsequential compared to spiritual, eternal suffering and death. God is all-powerful, meaning He can accomplish anything that can be accomplished with power. He cannot use power to do “non-power” kinds of things, such as the logically impossible. He cannot make two plus two equal five, violate His unchangeable nature, make Himself go out of existence and come back into existence, and He cannot make morally responsible persons without allowing for the possibility of those persons making wrong choices. The Bible says that suffering is the consequence of the wrong choice (sin) of morally responsible persons. If God always prevented people from sinning, or always prevented the consequences of sin, then human goodness would be mere programming, not true goodness. We do not pat a computer on its head when it executes its program -- it is a determined function, not an exercise of moral responsibility. Suffering, the consequence of human sin, is not caused by God, but by the sin of persons with moral responsibility. Also, God has not abandoned the world to eternally suffer the consequences of sin. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide ultimate freedom from the consequences of sin. It is wrong to indict God because suffering is not yet eliminated, just as it would be wrong to indict a doctor who treats a gunshot wound he didn’t cause, simply because the wound is not healed instantly. Our assurance that God will eliminate suffering is not the only comfort God gives us. While God did not cause suffering, he has given it purpose. It became the vehicle for our salvation when “Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame” (Hebrews 12:2). Complete avoidance of suffering is not an option for any of us. Our option is to waste our experience or realize God’s purposes in the midst of suffering. Through suffering we can learn patience, self-discipline, trust, and many other “virtues.” When we suffer we can experience the love, compassion, and self-denial of those who help us. When we help someone who is suffering, we find significance in our own lives as well. Not all pain is “bad” in the moral sense. God created us with nerve endings that use pain to protect us. Pain keeps us from burning our hands in a campfire, bending our legs back until the joint breaks, neglecting nourishment until we starve, etc. Suffering can also be a direct, just consequence of our own actions. Our sense of justice says that it is “good” when an exploiter loses his friends, even though loneliness is “painful.” It is good when a mugger is locked up, even though he “suffers” the loss of his freedom. All humans have a moral conscience, even corrupted by sin and often ignored. Our conscience should not rejoice in sin, suffering, and death. When we see innocents suffering, we should experience moral outrage and seek to rescue the sufferer. When we see someone suffer death, we should experience loss and sorrow. Sin, suffering, and death are not the destinies for which God created us. He created us to enjoy perfect, good, loving fellowship with Him for eternity. Despite our moral betrayal, he continues to offer eternal life. The skeptic has it partly right -- suffering should offend our sense of goodness and justice. Sadly, he misses the rest of the argument: Because suffering violates goodness and justice, there must be an all-good, all-powerful God whose remedy restores the perfection he created. This is the hope that the Christian offers in the midst of suffering: I consider the that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. [Romans 8:8] Suffering and death in this sinful world are not without remedy. The only reasonable response to the existence of suffering is confidence in God’s promises for eternity: Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . . Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. . . . Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Matt. 5:3-10]

No thank you. Which is different than us sponsoring Israel how? Semantics maybe? Israel has assassinated multiple Iranian scientists, blown up their facilities, and (with the help of the US) hacked into their computer systems. Congress does have the responsibility to advice and consent and approve treaties. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate. Perhaps the admin is going for a non-binding agreement?? http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/did-obama-go-non-binding-deal-iran-dodge-senate-state-dep-t-won-t Regarding Israel blowing up Iranian facilities: up to debate as to what lengths a country can go to in order to guarantee its survival. Israel sees the Iranian program as a direct threat - not to mention Iran's sponsorship of terror groups bent on Israel's destruction - not to mention #2 Iran leaders' stated desire to see Israel destroyed. What might the USA do if Cuba actually ended up wt Soviet missiles or if Venezuela (a known anti-USA govt) was developing terror groups or a missile program to attack the USA? We would act out of self preservation. I get your overall point however: terrorism of one kind breads perceived reactionary terrorist activity of another kind. Thus my point: What good is a peace agreement between the USA and Iran without Israel (and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt - who basically with Iran represent the whole region) in the deal. Other than oil and our defense treaty with Israel, we have no skin in the game. The other countries have their survival in the game.

Sadly, even the local news anymore is more about entertainment, culture, etc. Where have all of the hard investigators gone?

Strigori pretty much nailed it right there. For TGHusker: I love it. I have no issue with what Strigori said to a point IF Strigori's hypothesis is correct, that Cotton is in the hip of the MIC and is only doing this to further their agenda, then I would be in agreement. I'll look for his supporting evidence that this was the motive behind the letter and the signatures of all of the other Senators. I am not a fan of the MIC and their need for war. What if the motive for the letter was to avoid a 'peace agreement' that would fall far short by not including other parties in the region as well as advice from the Congress? Can we honestly say we can trust this Iranian leadership? They sponsor terrorism in the region. I think we can trust the Iranian people and if we were in negotiation wt a non-radical Islamic govt, I would have more confidence. I would like to see a more comprehensive agreement within the region. To be honest with you, I don't know the base motive of the letter. And each Senator may have their separate reasons for signing. Perhaps all political or perhaps philosophical differences. My post with the list, is just to point out that these actions cut both ways and have for years. Strigori says the dems' actions were all about peace. However, peace via concession to communism (as in 2 or 3 of the situations on the list) without the reduction of tyranny & the increase in individual liberty is not real peace in my book. Sometimes 'peace' is not the best route (don't quote me out of context here and accuse me of being pro-war) - Think Neville Chamberlain - Munich Agreement 1938. "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time." In the case of Iran, (talking blind here since we don't know the details), shouldn't any agreement be tied to improvement of human rights & liberty within Iran (remember the failed 2009 green revolt in Iran) and securing a trans-MidEast peace agreement by including others - including Israel. The admin could be accused of unilateralism - something GWB was accused of (and rightly so).