barnabas

An isochron (a word meaning "equal time") is supposed to be a line connecting points on a graph that represent the same age, or the same age difference. If your rain gutter barrel fills fast and the bucket in your garage fills slowly, for instance, you can figure the time the rain started if you know their individual fill rates; the line connecting those two points on a graph would be an isochron. If you found another bucket and its fill rate also fell on the line, it would imply it started filling at the same time. As straightforward as this method is at home or in the lab, can it be misleading when extrapolated millions of years into the past, when the initial and intervening conditions were not subject to observation? When geologists date rocks, they seek to identify minerals that are isochronous, though they may decay at different rates. A hidden assumption was that the initial isotope ratios were fixed at the time the rock formed. Not so fast, say four geologists from the UK, Wisconsin and California, writing in Geology:1 The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. (Emphasis added in all quotes.) This realization

BBC News claims a new fossil discovery published in Nature,1 a large badger-like carnivorous mammal, ate dinosaurs for lunch. But then again, who knows what time of day the Cretaceous restaurants were open? The fossil, another in a series of spectacular finds from the Liaoning Province in China, is creating a sensation, because it overturns an assumption that Mesozoic mammals were ecological underdogs

teleios - perfect 1 Cor. 13:10 (referring to the complete revelation of God's will and ways, whether in the completed Scriptures or in the hereafter); here it is talking about the hereafter!

Amen!

The passage is talking about unworthy (irrerevrant) attitude. Some people were getting drunk and others were gluttons! So when we receive communion it must be in a reverant attitude (hence worthy). Worthy is not the best translated word here! If it were to mean worthy as in righteuosness then no body is qualified to partake in communion! Thus by all means partake in communion but do so in a holy and reverant attitude.

Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch." As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews." Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup's Hitler FAQ. Night of 11th-12th July, 1941 "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7) 10th October, 1941, midday "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43) 14th October, 1941, midday "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... "Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... "...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... "Christianity <is> the liar.... "We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52) 19th October, 1941, night "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." 21st October, 1941, midday "Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... "The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... "Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65) 13th December, 1941, midnight "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>.... "When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119) 14th December, 1941, midday "Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... "Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120) 9th April, 1942, dinner "There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339) 27th February, 1942, midday "It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie." "Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

You May Be A Fundamentalist Atheist If You think if a Christian won't address your arguments, they are too frightened to do so, or know they can't answer them; but if they do address your arguments, you think it is because they are "threatened" by them. You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a "true atheist." You think that John Shelby Spong is a reputable theologian but that Ben Witherington is merely an ignorant biblicist. You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism. You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position. You get angry when Christians tell you you're going to a place that you don't think exists. You deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth. You get angry and cry "hate" at a light hearted look at atheists. Cheer up! Jesus loves you. We love you.

My family do not give praise to satan. We do not celebrate evil! quote=IreneM,Oct 26 2004, 06:51 PM] How many of you plan to let your kids go trick or treating or plan to leave light on and allow kids to knockon your door ???? Alot of Christians see nothing wrong with kids trick or treating so just wanted to know how you feel In Christ IreneM <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. It is interesting to notice that those who deny the existence of God do not really live consistently with their own belief. In fact, subconsciously, an atheist actually acknowledges the authority of God every time he judges something to be morally right or wrong. A consistent atheist cannot admit moral values, because there is no such thing as a moral value if there is no God. You see, an atheist has no real philosophical basis for saying that you are morally wrong if you steal his car. The most he can say (and still be consistent with his belief) is that you have broken a law which has been set up by a majority of people for the purpose of living more conveniently or pleasurably. But just let someone try lying to an atheist, or stealing something from him, or messing around with his mate, and you will see how quickly he becomes a moralist! Again, it is the rare atheist who refuses to admit that Hitler was wrong when he slaughtered six million Jews. But a consistent atheist has no basis for making that moral judgment. The most he can say (and still be consistent) is that Hitler's action was not pleasing to a majority of an animal species known as human beings, in a certain culture on the planet earth at a certain time in history. Only when God is admitted into the picture do the deeds of Hitler become evil. The first words of the Bible bring God into the picture! You may be a fundamentalist atheist if.... You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist. You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives. When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites....all that is except for your friend who died. You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing." You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded". You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith. You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution." It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed. When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it. You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !) When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he's just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself. You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing. You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion; and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect; but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality. So does that make evolution a religion? A Christian is someone who believes Jesus is God, died and rose from the dead and confesses Jesus as Lord. JW do not believe that Jesus is God. There is no other way to the father, except through belief in the son. There's no other name in which people can be saved.

I've no doubt that many who have worked in the school of the Americas are genuine diggers or soldiers. The good that comes out of the school does not negate the evil. Likewise many missions these days teach English or help the poor etc and the amin emphasis isn't on the social work but on the preaching of the gospel. Likewise the American terrorist training camp surely would have a lot of good charitable projects besides its main aim or training terrorists.

Go for it. Forget about America, I want a flat tax system in Oz! The poor don't pay much tax. The rich don't pay much. It's the middle income earner that supports most of the tax system.

If you are interseted in more information about the terrorist training camp check out the links at http://www.zpub.com/notes/terror-camp.html SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS EXPOSED! By: Mike Rhodes (with significant parts of this article taken directly from the SOA Watch web site) September 6, 2003 Fresno California Father Roy Bourgeois says that the United States government sponsors a school that trains terrorists. The

It is undeniable that the World Trade Centre crash was an act of terror by terrorists. So was the Bali Bomb and all the suicide bombers. They claim america is the terrorist. We always turn a deaf ear to such a ridiculous claim, but is there any truth to it? Read the following report of the terrorist training camp in america. Backyard terrorism The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it George Monbiot Tuesday October 30, 2001 The Guardian "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention. For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government. Until January this year, Whisc was called the "School of the Americas", or SOA. Since 1946, SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch show, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni. In June this year, Colonel Byron Lima Estrada, once a student at the school, was convicted in Guatemala City of murdering Bishop Juan Gerardi in 1998. Gerardi was killed because he had helped to write a report on the atrocities committed by Guatemala's D-2, the military intelligence agency run by Lima Estrada with the help of two other SOA graduates. D-2 coordinated the "anti-insurgency" campaign which obliterated 448 Mayan Indian villages, and murdered tens of thousands of their people. Forty per cent of the cabinet ministers who served the genocidal regimes of Lucas Garcia, Rios Montt and Mejia Victores studied at the School of the Americas. In 1993, the United Nations truth commission on El Salvador named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of the civil war. Two-thirds of them had been trained at the School of the Americas. Among them were Roberto D'Aubuisson, the leader of El Salvador's death squads; the men who killed Archbishop Oscar Romero; and 19 of the 26 soldiers who murdered the Jesuit priests in 1989. In Chile, the school's graduates ran both Augusto Pinochet's secret police and his three principal concentration camps. One of them helped to murder Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffit in Washington DC in 1976. Argentina's dictators Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, Panama's Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado and Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez all benefited from the school's instruction. So did the leader of the Grupo Colina death squad in Fujimori's Peru; four of the five officers who ran the infamous Battalion 3-16 in Honduras (which controlled the death squads there in the 1980s) and the commander responsible for the 1994 Ocosingo massacre in Mexico. All this, the school's defenders insist, is ancient history. But SOA graduates are also involved in the dirty war now being waged, with US support, in Colombia. In 1999 the US State Department's report on human rights named two SOA graduates as the murderers of the peace commissioner, Alex Lopera. Last year, Human Rights Watch revealed that seven former pupils are running paramilitary groups there and have commissioned kidnappings, disappearances, murders and massacres. In February this year an SOA graduate in Colombia was convicted of complicity in the torture and killing of 30 peasants by paramilitaries. The school is now drawing more of its students from Colombia than from any other country. The FBI defines terrorism as "violent acts... intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government", which is a precise description of the activities of SOA's graduates. But how can we be sure that their alma mater has had any part in this? Well, in 1996, the US government was forced to release seven of the school's training manuals. Among other top tips for terrorists, they recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses' relatives. Last year, partly as a result of the campaign run by SOA Watch, several US congressmen tried to shut the school down. They were defeated by 10 votes. Instead, the House of Representatives voted to close it and then immediately reopen it under a different name. So, just as Windscale turned into Sellafield in the hope of parrying public memory, the School of the Americas washed its hands of the past by renaming itself Whisc. As the school's Colonel Mark Morgan informed the Department of Defense just before the vote in Congress: "Some of your bosses have told us that they can't support anything with the name 'School of the Americas' on it. Our proposal addresses this concern. It changes the name." Paul Coverdell, the Georgia senator who had fought to save the school, told the papers that the changes were "basically cosmetic". But visit Whisc's website and you'll see that the School of the Americas has been all but excised from the record. Even the page marked "History" fails to mention it. Whisc's courses, it tells us, "cover a broad spectrum of relevant areas, such as operational planning for peace operations; disaster relief; civil-military operations; tactical planning and execution of counter drug operations". Several pages describe its human rights initiatives. But, though they account for almost the entire training programme, combat and commando techniques, counter-insurgency and interrogation aren't mentioned. Nor is the fact that Whisc's "peace" and "human rights" options were also offered by SOA in the hope of appeasing Congress and preserving its budget: but hardly any of the students chose to take them. We can't expect this terrorist training camp to reform itself: after all, it refuses even to acknowledge that it has a past, let alone to learn from it. So, given that the evidence linking the school to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking the al-Qaida training camps to the attack on New York, what should we do about the "evil-doers" in Fort Benning, Georgia? Well, we could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic pressure, and to seek the extradition of the school's commanders for trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity. Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it with a new administration overseen by the UN. In case this proposal proves unpopular with the American people, we could win their hearts and minds by dropping naan bread and dried curry in plastic bags stamped with the Afghan flag. You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree. But try as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of action and the war now being waged in Afghanistan. http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/stor...,583254,00.html