I would like to apologize to all of you, especially to Larry. In some of my earlier posts I was not behaving Christ-like by some of the things I said. I have asked the Lord to forgive me, and I am asking Larry and the rest of you to forgive me, too.

Is this commentary on our gloriously stupid leader who we voted for twice?

But JCL is correct. In the USA, right-wing is considered the hard-core, bible thumping, conservative, Republican view point.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=6418908&page=1

Dooley, thank you for being so kind. I understand what you are saying, although I believe God's word speaks for itself.

Most of my relatives in Europe died in concentration camps.
I may be many things, but a Nazi is not one of them. By right wing, I meant that I do tend to be conservative in my thinking and beliefs. Also, I believe I am right wing because I believe to be on the right side...the Lord's side which is always right.

Not that it matters much, but Hitler definitely was more interested in a state-planned and very much controlled economy than in a deregulated libertarian economy. Controlling German interests has always been top-priority.

Together with Hitler's view on the future and the socialism involved, I would probably have put Hitler a lot further to the left of center instead of right of center. Just think of the almost communist-like vacation resorts they had planned for the future.

In my opinion Hitler and Stalin had a lot more in common than the diagram suggests. Actually, the article admits they are further apart depicted in the diagram because of their difference of opinion on economy, but that difference really isn't that huge.



Don't take this the wrong way. I know you'll deny having superiority feelings about your beliefs, but it strikes me how you keep implying, however jokingly, that you are religious and therefore must be right.

Cheers

Thank you for explaining it better than I could. If there's an area where we don't have the answer i.e. biogenesis, why should we not consider all possible explanations? Why is there an immediate dismissal of Intelligent Design. My earlier explanation was that this negativity to intelligent design is based in the historical context of religious persecution of scientists like Galeleo, and other later scientists who proposed teaching evolution. My point is that dismissing Intelligent Design is not a scientific stance, where all options should be considered, but rather a reactionary stance based on past missdeeds of the church. Now however, the persecution is directed the other way, and although it's not as bad as the Inquisition, it's still unbalanced and unfair to the proponents of Intelligent design, especially those who really do approach it scientifically.



So you are arguing that because suffering exists, there cannot be a God. I hear this argument a lot from people who do not believe in God... But that does not make it wrong. However, if we examine it logically, it doesn't add up. I maintain that God's existence is hidden from us. We cannot prove or disprove it scientifically. Science is limited to things which appear to our senses and can be observed.

The existence of suffering does not prove or disprove God's existence, it just indicates that if there is a God, then it must be a God who allows suffering to go on. My view of this is that such a God might also allow for the existence of Hell, so I believe the safest bet is to bet on God. I may be wrong, but if I am it won't make any difference, I'll be dust. If, however, I bet on no God, and I'm wrong, I'll regret it forever. This is the basic logic I use to arrive at belief.

This is not however, the end of it. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that God does exist. If so, He surely could make Himself apparent to anyone He chooses. (please note I don't believe God is a Man, it simply sounds better to me than calling God 'It' or 'She') Anyway, I don't think God remains a simple 50% bet for people who choose to believe. They begin a relationship in which God may choose to reveal Himself to them. If you think this is un-scientific, you're right. The movie 'Contact' addressed this very issue, when Jodie Foster's character asked Matthew McConaughey "can you prove that God exists?" His response was "Do you love your father?" She said "yes", and he asked "can you prove it?"

My point is that a lot of people, scientists included, have concluded from studying nature, that the complexity and beauty in it has led them to believe that there was an Intelligence behind it's design. Why can this not be taught? This is different than Creationism, which takes the Bible literally, and imposes itself on any scientific discovery.

Phemox, I am not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I superior to anyone. I know that I am not as intelligent as most of the people on this forum. I do not believe I am right because I am religious. As I have said before, religion is man-made. What I believe in is not religion. I believe in God/Jesus Christ and that the bible is His word. Man has made religions out of it. I put no stock in man or religion. Yes, I know I am right. I have no doubts that God is true and His word is true. It has nothing to do with me at all. When I realized that I was a sinner and that if I was wrong I had everything to lose, I asked God to show me if Christ is indeed the truth. The bible says that when we accept Christ as our Savior, the Holy Spirit seals us and indwells us forever. I did not know that at the time, but after I asked Christ to forgive my sins and save me, I began to read the bible and understand it, when before it made no sense to me at all. This is why I know I am right, because it is the Holy Spirit who enlightens and illuminates the word of God for us. Like I said, it has nothing to do with me. I am nobody special. I am just a sinner who deserves to go to hell, but I am saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. It is so simple that even a child and even I can understand it.

Because it is disproven.

Dooley, I just want to say that I really enjoy reading your posts.

Answer: "Yes, I can use a polygraph."