A recent report on spam by Reuters stated that Yugoslavia, in an attempt to bring in more revenue is "harboring" spammers through its new program in which the government sells mass emailing licenses to spammers. These licenses basically exempt these spammers from any kind of criminal prosecution.
While this article is good news, it will not stop the constant migration of spamming operations to foreign countries who need the money.
There have been more and more people moving towards a newer solution which is very simple. Just ignore the spam. If more and more people ignore the unsolicited emails, eventually the Spammers will lose revenue or lose interest. By establishing all these forceful "spam attacks" we are just flaming the fire and provoking more spam. This is exactly the kind of media attention these spammers thrive on.
Andrew Harvey wrote basically the same exact article about ten years ago. The only difference was that he attempted to relate this concept to spirituality.
The guy who wrote this article, Frank Schweitzer, has been accused in the past of taking ideas from other Conihilimous (The study of self structuring autonomous networks) experts such as Andrew Harvey and the asian mathemetician Niyh B. Tihtzen.
just my two cents
Christian pro-life campaigners are claiming a major victory, following a Supreme Court ruling that a federal racketeering law can't be used against abortion protesters. By an 8-1 majority, the justices reversed a lower court judgment which had ruled that Operation Rescue pro-life activist Joe Scheidler and others committed extortion and violated racketeering laws when protesting in front of an abortion clinic.
Scheidler and the other demonstrators were sued in 1986 by abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin and the National Organization for Women (NOW), which contended that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients.
They claimed the groups blocked clinic entrances, menaced doctors, patients and clinic staff, and destroyed equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit abortions. The demonstrators were ordered to pay about $258,000 in damages and barred from interfering nationwide with the clinics' business for 10 years.
"[The] decision is a major victory for the pro-life movement, and a major testament to the power of prayer," Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League, said on the group's Web site. "[We] wish to thank all the thousands of supporters around the world who have prayed for this victory over the past 17 years."
The ruling that the protesters could not be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was "a spectacular victory for those living out the gospel of Christ in the streets," said Flip Benham, national director of Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America.
Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, one of several Christian groups that filed briefs in the case, arguing that pro- life protesters were not guilty of extortion, said "the Supreme Court breathed new life into the pro-life movement."
At the American Center for Law and Justice, chief counsel Jay Sekulow said the judgment was "a tremendous victory for those who engage in social protests." John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said that the RICO Act could no longer be used "as a bludgeon to silence dissenters from rightfully expressing their views in a public forum."
James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, said the ruling "should help thwart the abortion industry's efforts to silence and punish the free speech and loving outreach of Christian men and women." The decision would "help ensure that women with crisis pregnancies will hear the pro-life message."
Family Research Council president Ken Connor predicted that pro- abortion groups would challenge the ruling. "The irony is that they will be exercising the very rights they seek to deny to others," he said. "The hypocrisy is breathtaking."
The RICO ruling was the second this week favoring pro-life groups. On Monday, the high court decided to let stand an Indiana state law requiring that women considering abortion be counseled face to face about the medical and emotional risks, the AP reported.
The court rejected an appeal from Indiana abortion clinics, claiming the in-person counseling sessions would force some women to forgo abortions or to risk their health by postponing the procedure far into pregnancy.
The decision means Indiana may begin fully enforcing a law passed eight years ago that requires in-person counseling and an 18-hour waiting period before a woman can get an abortion. The law and similar measures on the books in four other states require women to make two trips to an abortion clinic.
As i have always said before on this board, abstraction breeds fundamentalism. HP has long had a reputation for just doing what it needs to do to please the masses, while offering no real substance to its service or products. Recent reports have even stated that HP will be adding proprietary software to the RH distro as time goes on.
Great news for the christian community.....
on
TiVo and Rendezvous
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
NEWS FLASH: Kip McKean Resigns!
The very foundations of the International Church of Christ have been rocked by the resignation of its founder and leader Kip McKean. McKean has resigned as supreme ICC leader because "my leadership in recent years has damaged both the Kingdom [ICC] and my family", and "I take full responsibility for how my sins have spiritually weakened and embittered many in our churches". Many suspect, of course, that the reasons given are probably a smoke screen designed to hide the primary shortcoming which has forced McKean to resign.
Kip McKean was the person on which the ICC was modelled on. Everybody wanted to be like Kip (see quotes below). He is the originator of many of the foundation ICC practices and doctrines. Therefore it is difficult to see how any ICC member can avoid asking himself or herself the hard question; if Kip was flawed all this time, and the ICC was based on Kip McKean, then doesn't it follow that the ICC must be seriously flawed too?
"You can tell the spirit of a church the moment you walk in. I walk into a church, I know all I need to know about that minister. I walk into that church, and I know this is either a total reflection of this man's life, or he has lived such an atrocious life before the Lord, that this is a rejection of his life. Let me tell you something, your church is going to be just like you. " ---Kip McKean, August, 1992: BOSTON LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE, "THE SUPER CHURCH"
Current ICC members need to realize that the ICC is NOT the "Kingdom of God" as the ICC claims. ICC members can leave the ICC and still be saved. Current members need to seriously revaluate their involvement in the man made edifice that is called the International Church of Christ. They should not be fooled by the cosmetic damage controlling reorganizing of ICC leadership, the ICC in essence has not changed.
At Cultwatch we recommend that ICC members take a couple of months holiday from the ICC. During their time away they should diligently research the other side of the story, the side the ICC leadership do not want you to know. The links at the bottom of this page are a great place to start your research. Also you should read www.HowCultsWork.com
Leaving the ICC means you are no longer guilty of being a partner in it's destructive practices. It means you can follow God instead of men. It means coming to understand that your salvation is not based on membership of a church, but rather on your status before God.
Don't let yourself be fooled, the ICC is not a reflection of God's character, rather it is the reflection of a flawed man. Follow God, not man!
Overview
* Founded in 1979 in Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
* Founded and currently led (in Los Angeles) by Kip McKean.
* Recognised worldwide for its harmful discipling practices and mind control techniques. * Leaders in Auckland have included John Hancell, Jonathan Harris, and Dean Carlton (past leaders).
The International Church of Christ (ICC) is a Christian based mind control cult. It has all the traits necessary to classify it as a mind control cult, including the teaching that it is the one true church, love bombing, deceptive recruiting, time control, relationship control, and the rest.
It was founded in Boston in the United States in 1979 by the cult's present day leader Kip McKean. McKean is, according to the cult, the "greatest living treasure that God has given the Kingdom on the face of the earth today".
Wanting to get a branch in every major city (with more than 100,000 people) by the year 2000, the group is very evangelistic, using church plantings to start new branches. As an example of how this works, the original Boston branch planted the London, England branch, who started the Sydney, Australia branch, who planted the Auckland, New Zealand branch (which resulted in Cultwatch being started). The Central Auckland Church of Christ then planted the Christchurch branch. However this rapid expansion leads to members burning out - sometimes after just a few months.
Back to top Discipling
* One-over-one discipling, rather than one-on-one discipling. * The discipler has the right to tell the disciple to do anything, including what to wear, where to work, and who to marry.
Kip McKean (pictured) is at the top of the cult's pyramid control structure called "discipling". Each person has a discipler - someone who has authority over them, who has the right to tell his or her disciple what to do. Ultimately everyone is being discipled by McKean, and hence following him. Here's what one of the cult leaders said about McKean:
"And again to those who believe that I, like countless others in a 'manmade movement' am blindly following Kip McKean, then know this. With eyes wide open I'm following Kip McKean: Consciously, intentionally, thankfully. I guess I'm just not as strong as some folks and I need help in following Jesus. And so far, I've found no better help, no better leader, no more righteous a man - no better friend than Kip."
Those in the cult are instructed to imitate their discipler who is above them - which they do, even in voice inflection and facial hair. (At one stage almost all of the men in the Central Auckland Church of Christ were wearing goatees because the then leader of that branch had a goatee.) Of course, this means that ultimately they are imitating Kip McKean. This is especially noticeable in preaching style. This is what two other ICC leaders said on this subject:
"The person who discipled me in the Lord is Kip McKean, the evangelist of the Boston Church. I want to be just like him. When he tells me things to do, you better believe I listen. And as I think back on the course of my relationships with Kip, I can tell you honestly, there are few times that I bucked Kip. And I can tell you honestly that I did wrong every time. It was not right to be arrogant, to be proud, to be rebellious... I want the guys who I am discipling to want to be like me."
"It would suit me just fine if I could leave this place and say you know - I just want to be exactly like Kip. I just want to be exactly like Kip. That would be enough."
"I want to be able to imitate Kip McKean. I want to preach like him. I want to think like him. I want to talk like him."
Scary stuff. The average ICC member is convinced they are trying to follow Jesus, but the reality is that they are following McKean. The ICC also claims to be the only church really following the Bible, however its practices such as ICC discipling and their method of taking "contribution" are not found in the Bible. There are also many other areas where its practices and beliefs violate scripture.
Back to top Branch Names
* Central Auckland Church of Christ lead by Rob Ferry.
* Christchurch Church of Christ lead by Angus McFarlane.
Branches of the ICC exist in many cities around the world. They often take the name of the city for the local ICC branches name. For example, in New Zealand they are called the "Central Auckland Church of Christ" and the "Christchurch Church of Christ".
One of the cult's aims is to get a branch in every city of over 100,000 people by the end of the millenium. Jonathan Harris, the former leader of the Central Auckland Church of Christ (with supporter in background) in the process of making an ad-hominim attack on a reporter on national television news instead of answering a question about the group's practices.
It should be noted that not all churches that use the words "Church of Christ" in their names are part of the ICC.
Back to top What Do I Do If I Know Someone Involved?
First of all, Don't Panic!
Second, don't tell them that they are in a cult. The ICC warns them early on in the recruitment process that Satan will use people around them to attack their conversion into the ICC by telling them that the ICC is a cult. By telling them that you are walking into the ICC's trap.
Third, research mind control and the ICC. The links on this page will help you do that. While you are doing that, put effort into keeping strong the relationship you have with the ICC member.
Fourth, see if you can arrange an exit counselling session with the ICC member. Often ICC members can be very open to talking about their involvement and examining the other side of the story, but beware - if the ICC leaders find out they will try to stop any intervention. Cultwatch has an ICC expert who can help exit counsel an ICC member. Also, there are many ex-members and other people around the world who are able to do this sort of thing. If you cannot arrange something like this then search the Internet and make up a package of material which shows the other side of the story. Give it to the member and encourage them to read it, but warn them that their leaders will not be too happy about it!
Please note that exit counselling is a voluntary action. We at Cultwatch will have nothing to do with kidnapping and deprogramming, so don't ask, because a referral to the police often offends.
The most important thing to remember is that we want the ICC member to have a time when they can examine their involvement and be presented with the other side of the story - the side the ICC would rather not have them hear. Your average ICC member is a person who wants, more than anything else, to follow God. When they realise how the ICC disobeys scripture and how their practices damage people they will seriously reconsider their involvement. It is important to note that it is the practices of the ICC which are wrong, not Christianity itself. There is no point "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Contrary to what the ICC will tell its members, they can leave the ICC and still be a Christian.
I really dont use Windows media but my two cents on it is that this fact is so manifest, from the manner in which the Scripture speaks of each, as to need but brief discussion.
The mere use of the names Father and Son points out a relation between two persons. That to each of them is ascribed the attributes of character, such as love, hate, goodness, mercy, truth, and justice, which can only exist in, and be exercised by persons, shows separate personality. Neither, except through distinct personal relation, can mutual love be said to be exercised, as by Christ to the Father, John 14:31; and by the Father to Christ, John 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 17:24. Manifestly, also, there must be two persons, when one is said to send, and another to be sent; one to give, and another to be given; one to teach, and another to be taught; one to show, and another to perceive what is shown; one to receive power, and another to bestow it; and one to be declared, with respect to another, to be "the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance," Heb. 1:2; and, because in the form of that other, to have "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Phil. 2:6.
We have here, therefore, not the one God, manifesting himself sometimes as Father, and sometimes as Son; but a distinction of persons in the Godhead, in which we are taught that in that Godhead there exists a personal relation of Father to Son, and Son to Father, with a distinct individuality and personality of each.
V. THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON.
The Scriptures designate, by several very similar terms, the third personality revealed in the Godhead. He is called "the Spirit," " the Spirit of God," " the Holy Spirit," " my Spirit," " the Spirit of the Lord," "the Spirit of Christ," " thy good Spirit," " the Spirit of glory, "the Spirit of grace," " the Spirit of knowledge and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord," "the Holy Spirit of promise," "the Spirit of truth," and "the Spirit of wisdom." Christ also called him "the Comforter," and "another Comforter."
The divine Spirit, thus denominated, must either be some power or influence exerted by God, or a distinct person in the Godhead. It cannot be simply the spiritual part of God, as is the spirit in man, for God is not compounded of spirit and body. This is manifest from his immateriality. Neither can it be in any way a part of his spiritual nature, as sometimes a distinction is made in man, between his mind and spirit, or his soul and spirit. The perfect simplicity of God, which forbids all composition, makes this impossible. It is, therefore, either God himself exercising some power or influence, or a person in the Godhead. An examination of the Scripture shows that it is the latter.
1. The evidences of personal action show that the Spirit is not merely a power or influence from God, but is either God himself or a divine person.
(1.) The Scriptures speak of the Spirit as in a state of activity. Gen. 1:2; Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:39. The language in these passages may be anthropomorphic, but the state of activity taught is undoubtedly real.
(2.) They declare that the Spirit teaches and gives instruction. Luke 12:12; John 14:26; 16:8, 13, 14; Acts 10:19; 1 Cor. 12:3.
(3.) The Spirit is also spoken of by them, as a witness of Christ to his people. John 15:26.
(4.) They also assert that he witnesses to believers that they are the children of God, and becomes the earnest of their inheritance. Rom. 8:16; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30.
(5.) He is spoken of as leading the sons of God. Rom. 8:14.
(6.) He is also said to dwell within them in such a way that his presence is that of God. John 14:16, 17; Rom. 8:9, 11; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19.
(7.) We are taught that he is grieved. Eph. 4: 30.
(8.) Ananias is charged with having lied to him. Acts 5: 3.
(9.) Blasphemy against him is the unpardonable sin. Matt. 12:31, 32.
(10.) He is spoken of as resisted by men. Acts 7:51.
(15.) As bestowing diversities of gifts. 1 Cor. 12:4-11.
In all these cases there is personal activity, thought, and feeling. What is thus declared, cannot be true of a mere power, or influence. The only question can be, whether this person is God, distinct from any plurality of personal relations, or whether he is another personality in the divine nature.
2. The Scriptures show that he is a separate person from the Father and the Son.
(1.) It is stated that he proceeds from the Father. John 15:26. A personal being, proceeding from a person, cannot be that person himself. The proofs above given, therefore, of his personal action and emotion, show that this Spirit is another person.
(2.) He is given, or sent by the Father. John 14:16, 26; Acts 5:32, and by the Son, John 15:26; 16:7; Acts 2:33. He that is sent cannot be identical with him that sends.
(3.) He is called the Spirit of the Father. Eph. 3:16; and also the Spirit of Christ, and of the Son. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6, perhaps also 2 Thess. 2:8.
(4.) The Son is said to send the Spirit from the Father. John 15:26; and God is said to send the Spirit of the Son. Gal. 4:6.
(5.) The Spirit is distinguished from the Father, and the Son, in passages which directly connect them with each other. Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 2:33; Eph. 2:18; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2.
(6.) The personality of the Spirit is also ably argued from "the use of the personal pronouns in relation to him," by Dr.Charles Hodge, Sys. Theol., Vol. I, p. 524. Not only are personal pronouns used by the Spirit, and of the Spirit., but there is a departure from grammatical rule, in the use of a masculine pronoun in connection with a neuter noun, unless the masculine is warranted by the fact, that a person is referred to who may be called "he."
VI. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD.
So completely do the Scriptures identify the Spirit with the Supreme God, that the fact of his personality having been established, his essential divinity will at once be admitted. In the discussion of the Trinity, therefore, the point of necessary proof as to the Spirit is his personality, while that as to the Son is his divinity. The abundant proof of the divinity of the Spirit is found:
1. In the passages which call him "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of the Lord," as well as those in which God calls him "my Spirit." These are conclusive, in like manner, as is the divinity of Christ from those which call him the Son of God. The titles "Spirit of God," and "Spirit of the Lord," are each used about twenty-five times in the Bible. "My Spirit" is used in reference to God's Spirit in Gen. 6:3; Prov. 1:23; Isa. 44:3; 59:21 ; Ezek. 36:27; 39:29; Joel 2:28; Haggai 2:5; Zech. 4:6.; Matt. 12:18; Acts 2:17, 18.
2. The writers of the New Testament declare that certain things, which in the Old Testament are ascribed to Jehovah, were said by the Spirit. Compare Acts 28:25-27, and Hebrews 3:7-9, with Isaiah 6:9, and also Heb. 9:8, with Ex. 25:1, and 30:10.
3. The sacred writers of the Old Testament were the messengers of God, and spake for him, yet the influence by which they became such is called in the New Testament the Holy Ghost. Compare Luke 1:70 with 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16, and Heb. 1:1 with 1 Peter 1:11; also Jer. 31:31, 33, 34, with Heb. 10:15-17.
4. The creation of the world is ascribed to the Spirit. Gen. 1: 2; Job 26:13; Ps. 104:30.
5. He is said to search, and know even the deep things of God. 1Cor. 2:10.
6. He is spoken of as omnipresent. Ps. 139:7-10, and omniscient. Ps. 139:11; 1 Cor. 2:10.
7. The divinity of the Spirit is peculiarly proved by his influences over Christ. It having been shown that Christ the Son is God, the connection of the Spirit of God with Christ, though it were only in his human nature, is a convincing proof that the Spirit, which is not a mere power of God, but a person, as we have seen above, must be also God.
(1.) In his birth. Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:31-35.
(2.) Mental and spiritual influences from the Spirit were predicted. Isa. 11:2, and Isaiah 61:1.
(a) And these were fulfilled at his baptism. Matt. 3:16; John 1:33.
(b) At the time of the temptation in the wilderness. Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12.
(c) In his preaching. Luke 4:14, 18-21.
(d) In his casting out devils. Matt. 12:28.
(3.) This spiritual influence was without measure. John 3:34.
8. The indwelling of the Spirit in the people of God is said to make them the temple of God. Compare 1 Cor. 3:16, and 6:19 with 2 Cor. 6:16, and Eph. 2:22.
9. The Spirit is expressly called God in connection with the falsehood of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5:3, 4, 9.
VII. THE THREE REVEALED DISTINCTLY.
The scriptural proofs of the personality and divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit having now been considered, it is proper to notice a few passages of Scripture in which the Three are revealed distinctly, by being mentioned, or manifested together. [See others under V. 2, (5), p. 132.]
1. At the baptism of Christ are seen the Son, who has just been baptized, and the "Spirit of God descending as a dove," while, from Heaven above, [and therefore from the Father and not from the Spirit, who is thus manifested distinctly from the Father,] is heard "a voice," "saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3: 17.
2. An equally plain distinction is set forth in the language of Christ, Matt. 28:19, in which he commanded baptism to be performed "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This act of baptism is such as to involve the divinity as well as the personality of the Three, for it is an act of worship such as can be paid to God only; it is a profession of faith in God and his righteousness, which can be due to God only; and it is a pledge of fealty, such as God has plainly taught he will share with no other.
3. In our Lord's last discourse he promises to send "the Comforter," "even the Holy Spirit," "from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." Here the Son sends, the Spirit is sent, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. He is also referred to as one "whom the Father will send in my name." See John 14:26, and 15:26.
4. The apostle Paul evidently refers to this same Three, when he writes the Corinthians of "the same Spirit," "the same Lord," and "the same God." 1 Cor. 12: 4-6.
5. The benediction, with which Paul closes his second epistle to the Corinthians, also presents unitedly, yet separately, the same Three; certain blessings are invoked, but with no apparent distinction of rank among those of whom they are asked. If there be any prominence, it is given the rather to the Son than to the Father.
VIII. THESE THREE ARE ONE GOD.
Our definition states that these Three are revealed as without division of nature, essence, or being. It is not intended to indicate, by the use of these three words, any wide distinction between them. They are nearly alike. Yet some distinction exists. By nature is meant that peculiar character of being which makes one kind of being to differ from another. Thus we speak of the divine nature, or the angelic nature, or the human nature, or the brute nature; meaning that peculiarity of life, and character, and personal condition, which makes a God, or an angel, or a man, or a brute. By essence is meant, that peculiarity, in the nature itself, which constitutes what is necessary to its existence, so that we cannot say, in the absence of that essence, that such a nature exists. Take away from human nature that which is its essential quality, and it must cease to be human nature. Being is the essence of any nature becoming actually existent in that nature. In God nature and essence must be identical, because everything in the nature of God is necessary to his existence, and consequently the nature can neither be greater nor less than the essence; indeed they must be the same. Neither can being be separated from the nature and essence of God, though it is not identical with them. The necessity of his actual existence is something inherent in his nature. There could be no such nature without necessarily involving the existence of some person or persons in it.
When it is affirmed, therefore, that there is no "division of nature, essence, or being," all that is meant is simply that there is but one God; that such is the divine nature that it cannot be multiplied, or divided, or distributed, any more than God can be thus divided in his omnipresence with all things. The divine nature is so possessed, by each of the persons in the Trinity, that neither has his own separate divine nature, but each subsists in one divine nature, common to the three. Otherwise the three persons would be three Gods. So also, in that divine nature, its essential quality is not divided in its relation through the nature to the persons. Were this so, there would be three separate parts of the divine nature. But that this cannot be, is manifest from the identity in God of nature and essence. That it is not so, is declared by the Scriptures, when they teach that there is but one God. In God there is also but one divine being, because there is but one divine essence and nature. There is but one that can have actuality of existence. The being of person, not being identical with that of nature, a fact which is true of all natures, created or uncreated, the unity of the nature, and of the essence does not forbid plurality of persons. The threeness of the persons, therefore, does not destroy the unity of the nature or essence, and consequently, not that of the being of God.
The Scriptures teach everywhere the unity of God explicitly and emphatically. There can be no doubt that they reveal a God that is exclusively one. But their other statements, which we have been examining, should assure us that they also teach that there are three divine persons. It is this peculiar twofold teaching, which is expressed by the word "trinity." The revelation to us, is not that of tritheism or three Gods; nor of triplicity, which is threefoldness, and would involve composition, and be contrary to the simplicity of God; nor of mere manifestation of one person in three forms, which is opposed to the revealed individuality of the persons; but it is well expressed by the word trinity, which is declarative, not simply of threeness, but of three-oneness. That this word is not found in Scripture is no objection to it, when the doctrine, expressed by it, is so clearly set forth.
Ok, im serious. If you go to http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressrel eases/200107/dmca.html..
Look at the bottom at the last two questions... The links they give to the US Attorneys office go to some amateur porn site. How ironic..
The idea of a Praeadamite race "was first raised to notice by Isaac Peyrere, who in 1655 published his book styled 'Praeadamitae.' He pretended to find his Praeadamites in Rom. 5:l2-14. The heathen, according to him, are the Praeadamites, being, as he supposed, created on the same day with the beasts, and those whose creation is mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis. Adam, the father of the Jews, was not created until a century later, and is the one who is mentioned in the second chapter. Since the time of Peyrere, this hypothesis has been exhibited more connectedly; and has been asserted independently of the authority of Moses; or in other words it has been asserted that the human race is older than Moses represents it." [Knapp's Chris. Theol., p. 185.]
So far as this hypothesis is confined to the past existence of other races of men who had passed away when Adam was created, or who were at least destroyed before or at the flood, it may be admitted as a possibility. There is no direct statement of Scripture to the contrary. Any proof which would make it certain, or even probable, may be admitted. But while this is possibly, it is not probably true. Nothing in Scripture, not even with great violence, can be wrested to its support. The account of creation and the manner in which the Adam there created is spoken of is contrary to any idea that the creations in the first and second chapters of Genesis are of any but the one race. The scientific evidence as to the method of God's creations concurs with the biblical in furnishing no proof that God has ever created the same animals at different periods, or from any other than one original source of each species. While these facts, therefore, are not conclusive against the possibility of more than one creation of human beings, they render it highly improbable.
But so far as this is intended to deny the unity of the present race, and to declare that any portion of it is not of Adamic origin, it is directly contrary to the Word of God.
1. Because the Scriptures trace the race of men now existing back to Noah, and through him to Adam.
2. Because they teach also that all others, except the eight saved in the Ark, were destroyed by the flood. If any other races of men existed before that time, which is not probable, they must then have been destroyed with the others of the Adamic race.
3. They not only speak of all mankind in general as though of this one race, but declare expressly that God "made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation." Acts 17:26. The King James version has "Made of one blood." This is especially emphatic because spoken to the Athenians, who claimed a special, separate origin from others.
4. The Scriptures account for the universal sinful condition of men, by not only a representative, but natural relation to Adam.
5. Salvation from sin is offered through Christ as the second Adam, whose fitness for his work was secured, not only by his representative relation, but also by his assumption of the same nature with man. Therefore his genealogy in Luke is traced back to Adam. It was also to "the whole creation," Mark 16:15, that Christ commanded his gospel to be preached, and "of all the nations," Matt. 28:19, that he ordered disciples to be made.
Science accords with Revelation in teaching the unity of the race.
1. It shows that among all men are the same essential characteristics which make a man. This is denied by none. There is the same outward form and inward structure, and also like mental and moral characteristics.
2. While variations in each of these respects unquestionably exist, they are all within the limits of a single species.
The science of Comparative Zoology shows:
(1.) That species are capable of great variations.
(2.) That the variations may become permanent.
(3.) That under favourable circumstances, with the lapse of time, this permanence becomes more and more fixed, and incapable of return to the original type.
(4.) That, however, there is after all a tendency to return, which develops itself under similar conditions with those of the original state.
(5.) That while offspring from parents of different species is possible, that offspring is itself either altogether unfruitful, or, as Dr. Cabell says, "the fertility is partial and temporary, rarely, if ever, extending through more than two generations." [Unity of Mankind, p.77.]
(6.) That the variations in man are at least equalled by those in other species.
Dr. Bachman asserts that "every vertebrated animal, from the horse down to the canary bird and gold-fish, is subject, in a state of domestication, to very great and striking varieties, and that in the majority of species these varieties are much greater than are exhibited in any of the numerous varieties of the human race." [Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 181, quoted by Dr. Cabell in Unity of Mankind, p.34.] "Blumenbach," says Cabell, p. 33, "long ago pointed out the great difference between the cranium of the domestic swine and that of the primitive wild boar, and remarked that this difference is quite equal to that which has been observed between the skull of the Negro and the European."
(7.) That the various races of men, when they intermarry, produce offspring which is itself continuously fruitful.
(8.) That while the Negro type of man, the most distinct, and the one showing the greatest variety from the Caucasian or white race, may be traced far back in the monumental history of Egypt, then is no delineation of it in the earliest records for nearly fifteen hundred years. This is admitted by Nott and Gliddon in their Types of Mankind, p. 259, though these writers speak of the Negro "as contemporary with the earliest Egyptians." [See Cabell, p. 91-92.]
3. The science of Comparative Philology also supports the doctrine of the unity of the human race. This science is as yet in its infancy, but has grown vigorously daring the short period of its existence. Already the languages of men have been reduced by some to four, by others to three, and yet by others to two different forms, and the tendency is to connect all language with some one common source. Whether this can be done or not is uncertain. The position is at least conceded that variety in language does not militate against the unity of mankind. It may be impossible to establish absolute unity of speech. The confusion at Babel renders this not improbable. But the investigations of this science show that the idea of several separate physical origins of the race is not true, because the grouping of men, as to physical race, does not correspond with the grouping rendered necessary by their different languages.
Prof. Whitney, who believes that the science of philology cannot now, or ever, decide either for or against this unity, says "it does not seem practicable to lay down any system of physical races which shall agree with any possible scheme of linguistic races. Indo-European, Semitic, Scythian and Caucasian tongues are spoken by men whom the naturalist would not separate from one another as of widely diverse stock; and on the other hand, Scythian dialects of close and indubitable relationship, are in the mouths of people who differ as widely in form and feature, as Hungarians and Lapps, while not less discordance of physical type is to be found among the speakers of various dialects belonging to more than one of the other great linguistic families." [Language and the Study of Language, p. 370.] The fact of this intermingling of dialects and races shows a common origin beyond the time of physical and linguistic changes. Thus do the two sciences, which were once so antagonistic to the doctrine of the unity of mankind, combine with each other to establish its truth.
Most open source software is developed by hackers or people who do it for the challenge or for the fun of it. This usually means that they are not getting PAID for it, or at least they are not getting paid a significatnt amount for it. This makes things dificult when it comes to certain aspects of software development, some of which include...
1) Lack of standardized fail-proof installation methods.
* This is mainly because of the UNIX philosophy of having many small parts, etc.... Because MOST open source software depends on dynamic libraries, this brings up all kinds of installation issues for the common user.
2) Lack of technical support
* This should be obvious.
Furthermore, i think that one our biggest issues is lack of a standardized, simple, user-friendly window manager/GUI application. I think that the Fresco project (http://www.fresco.org) will really advance OSS popularity if it can work out the way they are hoping, and if it doesnt take anothrt 7 years to get a stable release out there.
While it is true that an application could not have caused this problem, is it however possible that a poorly designed application could have allowed to problem to continue as opposed to a well written application may have been able to prevent the triggering of this problem. For example, setting the TTL too high. If this was taken into account correctly wouldn't that have prevented the whole problem in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
A recent report on spam by Reuters stated that Yugoslavia, in an attempt to bring in more revenue is "harboring" spammers through its new program in which the government sells mass emailing licenses to spammers. These licenses basically exempt these spammers from any kind of criminal prosecution.
While this article is good news, it will not stop the constant migration of spamming operations to foreign countries who need the money.
There have been more and more people moving towards a newer solution which is very simple. Just ignore the spam. If more and more people ignore the unsolicited emails, eventually the Spammers will lose revenue or lose interest. By establishing all these forceful "spam attacks" we are just flaming the fire and provoking more spam. This is exactly the kind of media attention these spammers thrive on.
my two cents
Andrew Harvey wrote basically the same exact article about ten years ago. The only difference was that he attempted to relate this concept to spirituality. The guy who wrote this article, Frank Schweitzer, has been accused in the past of taking ideas from other Conihilimous (The study of self structuring autonomous networks) experts such as Andrew Harvey and the asian mathemetician Niyh B. Tihtzen. just my two cents
Slashdotters, good news....
Christian pro-life campaigners are claiming a
major victory, following a Supreme Court ruling that a federal racketeering law can't be used against abortion protesters. By an 8-1 majority, the justices reversed a lower court judgment which had ruled that Operation Rescue pro-life activist Joe Scheidler and others committed extortion and violated racketeering laws when protesting in front of an abortion clinic.
Scheidler and the other demonstrators were sued in 1986 by abortion clinics in Delaware and Wisconsin and the National Organization for Women (NOW), which contended that racketeering and extortion laws should protect businesses from violent protests that drive away clients.
They claimed the groups blocked clinic entrances, menaced doctors, patients and clinic staff, and destroyed equipment during a 15-year campaign to limit abortions. The demonstrators were ordered to pay about $258,000 in damages and barred from interfering nationwide with the clinics' business for 10 years.
"[The] decision is a major victory for the pro-life movement, and a major testament to the power of prayer," Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League, said on the group's Web site. "[We] wish to thank all the thousands of supporters around the world who have prayed for this victory over the past 17 years."
The ruling that the protesters could not be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was "a spectacular victory for those living out the gospel of Christ in the streets," said Flip Benham, national director of Operation Rescue, now known as Operation Save America.
Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, one of several Christian groups that filed briefs in the case, arguing that pro- life protesters were not guilty of extortion, said "the Supreme Court breathed new life into the pro-life movement."
At the American Center for Law and Justice, chief counsel Jay Sekulow said the judgment was "a tremendous victory for those who engage in social protests." John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said that the RICO Act could no longer be used "as a bludgeon to silence dissenters from rightfully expressing their views in a public forum."
James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, said the ruling "should help thwart the abortion industry's efforts to silence and punish the free speech and loving outreach of Christian men and women." The decision would "help ensure that women with crisis pregnancies will hear the pro-life message."
Family Research Council president Ken Connor predicted that pro- abortion groups would challenge the ruling. "The irony is that they will be exercising the very rights they seek to deny to others," he said. "The hypocrisy is breathtaking."
The RICO ruling was the second this week favoring pro-life groups. On Monday, the high court decided to let stand an Indiana state law requiring that women considering abortion be counseled face to face about the medical and emotional risks, the AP reported.
The court rejected an appeal from Indiana abortion clinics, claiming the in-person counseling sessions would force some women to forgo abortions or to risk their health by postponing the procedure far into pregnancy.
The decision means Indiana may begin fully enforcing a law passed eight years ago that requires in-person counseling and an 18-hour waiting period before a woman can get an abortion. The law and similar measures on the books in four other states require women to make two trips to an abortion clinic.
The Washington Post did a similar story in which they confirmed the Los Angeles dates and locations:
Los Angeles City Hall
April 17 : 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
April 18 : 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
April 25 : 10:00 am - 3:00 pm
Mark your calendars.
As i have always said before on this board, abstraction breeds fundamentalism. HP has long had a reputation for just doing what it needs to do to please the masses, while offering no real substance to its service or products. Recent reports have even stated that HP will be adding proprietary software to the RH distro as time goes on.
Just my 2 cents
we arleady have a vctor based UI.. its called Fresco
...the vodka controls YOU
NEWS FLASH: Kip McKean Resigns!
The very foundations of the International Church of Christ have been rocked by the resignation of its founder and leader Kip McKean. McKean has resigned as supreme ICC leader because "my leadership in recent years has damaged both the Kingdom [ICC] and my family", and "I take full responsibility for how my sins have spiritually weakened and embittered many in our churches". Many suspect, of course, that the reasons given are probably a smoke screen designed to hide the primary shortcoming which has forced McKean to resign.
Kip McKean was the person on which the ICC was modelled on. Everybody wanted to be like Kip (see quotes below). He is the originator of many of the foundation ICC practices and doctrines. Therefore it is difficult to see how any ICC member can avoid asking himself or herself the hard question; if Kip was flawed all this time, and the ICC was based on Kip McKean, then doesn't it follow that the ICC must be seriously flawed too?
"You can tell the spirit of a church the moment you walk in. I walk into a church, I know all I need to know about that minister. I walk into that church, and I know this is either a total reflection of this man's life, or he has lived such an atrocious life before the Lord, that this is a rejection of his life. Let me tell you something, your church is going to be just like you. " ---Kip McKean, August, 1992: BOSTON LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE, "THE SUPER CHURCH"
Current ICC members need to realize that the ICC is NOT the "Kingdom of God" as the ICC claims. ICC members can leave the ICC and still be saved. Current members need to seriously revaluate their involvement in the man made edifice that is called the International Church of Christ. They should not be fooled by the cosmetic damage controlling reorganizing of ICC leadership, the ICC in essence has not changed.
At Cultwatch we recommend that ICC members take a couple of months holiday from the ICC. During their time away they should diligently research the other side of the story, the side the ICC leadership do not want you to know. The links at the bottom of this page are a great place to start your research. Also you should read www.HowCultsWork.com
Leaving the ICC means you are no longer guilty of being a partner in it's destructive practices. It means you can follow God instead of men. It means coming to understand that your salvation is not based on membership of a church, but rather on your status before God.
Don't let yourself be fooled, the ICC is not a reflection of God's character, rather it is the reflection of a flawed man. Follow God, not man!
Overview
* Founded in 1979 in Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
* Founded and currently led (in Los Angeles) by Kip McKean.
* Recognised worldwide for its harmful discipling practices and mind control techniques.
* Leaders in Auckland have included John Hancell, Jonathan Harris, and Dean Carlton (past leaders).
The International Church of Christ (ICC) is a Christian based mind control cult. It has all the traits necessary to classify it as a mind control cult, including the teaching that it is the one true church, love bombing, deceptive recruiting, time control, relationship control, and the rest.
It was founded in Boston in the United States in 1979 by the cult's present day leader Kip McKean. McKean is, according to the cult, the "greatest living treasure that God has given the Kingdom on the face of the earth today".
Wanting to get a branch in every major city (with more than 100,000 people) by the year 2000, the group is very evangelistic, using church plantings to start new branches. As an example of how this works, the original Boston branch planted the London, England branch, who started the Sydney, Australia branch, who planted the Auckland, New Zealand branch (which resulted in Cultwatch being started). The Central Auckland Church of Christ then planted the Christchurch branch. However this rapid expansion leads to members burning out - sometimes after just a few months.
Back to top
Discipling
* One-over-one discipling, rather than one-on-one discipling.
* The discipler has the right to tell the disciple to do anything, including what to wear, where to work, and who to marry.
Kip McKean (pictured) is at the top of the cult's pyramid control structure called "discipling". Each person has a discipler - someone who has authority over them, who has the right to tell his or her disciple what to do. Ultimately everyone is being discipled by McKean, and hence following him. Here's what one of the cult leaders said about McKean:
"And again to those who believe that I, like countless others in a 'manmade movement' am blindly following Kip McKean, then know this. With eyes wide open I'm following Kip McKean: Consciously, intentionally, thankfully. I guess I'm just not as strong as some folks and I need help in following Jesus. And so far, I've found no better help, no better leader, no more righteous a man - no better friend than Kip."
Those in the cult are instructed to imitate their discipler who is above them - which they do, even in voice inflection and facial hair. (At one stage almost all of the men in the Central Auckland Church of Christ were wearing goatees because the then leader of that branch had a goatee.) Of course, this means that ultimately they are imitating Kip McKean. This is especially noticeable in preaching style. This is what two other ICC leaders said on this subject:
"The person who discipled me in the Lord is Kip McKean, the evangelist of the Boston Church. I want to be just like him. When he tells me things to do, you better believe I listen. And as I think back on the course of my relationships with Kip, I can tell you honestly, there are few times that I bucked Kip. And I can tell you honestly that I did wrong every time. It was not right to be arrogant, to be proud, to be rebellious... I want the guys who I am discipling to want to be like me."
"It would suit me just fine if I could leave this place and say you know - I just want to be exactly like Kip. I just want to be exactly like Kip. That would be enough."
"I want to be able to imitate Kip McKean. I want to preach like him. I want to think like him. I want to talk like him."
Scary stuff. The average ICC member is convinced they are trying to follow Jesus, but the reality is that they are following McKean. The ICC also claims to be the only church really following the Bible, however its practices such as ICC discipling and their method of taking "contribution" are not found in the Bible. There are also many other areas where its practices and beliefs violate scripture.
Back to top
Branch Names
* Central Auckland Church of Christ lead by Rob Ferry.
* Christchurch Church of Christ lead by Angus McFarlane.
Branches of the ICC exist in many cities around the world. They often take the name of the city for the local ICC branches name. For example, in New Zealand they are called the "Central Auckland Church of Christ" and the "Christchurch Church of Christ".
One of the cult's aims is to get a branch in every city of over 100,000 people by the end of the millenium.
Jonathan Harris, the former leader of the Central Auckland Church of Christ (with supporter in background) in the process of making an ad-hominim attack on a reporter on national television news instead of answering a question about the group's practices.
It should be noted that not all churches that use the words "Church of Christ" in their names are part of the ICC.
Back to top
What Do I Do If I Know Someone Involved?
First of all, Don't Panic!
Second, don't tell them that they are in a cult. The ICC warns them early on in the recruitment process that Satan will use people around them to attack their conversion into the ICC by telling them that the ICC is a cult. By telling them that you are walking into the ICC's trap.
Third, research mind control and the ICC. The links on this page will help you do that. While you are doing that, put effort into keeping strong the relationship you have with the ICC member.
Fourth, see if you can arrange an exit counselling session with the ICC member. Often ICC members can be very open to talking about their involvement and examining the other side of the story, but beware - if the ICC leaders find out they will try to stop any intervention. Cultwatch has an ICC expert who can help exit counsel an ICC member. Also, there are many ex-members and other people around the world who are able to do this sort of thing. If you cannot arrange something like this then search the Internet and make up a package of material which shows the other side of the story. Give it to the member and encourage them to read it, but warn them that their leaders will not be too happy about it!
Please note that exit counselling is a voluntary action. We at Cultwatch will have nothing to do with kidnapping and deprogramming, so don't ask, because a referral to the police often offends.
The most important thing to remember is that we want the ICC member to have a time when they can examine their involvement and be presented with the other side of the story - the side the ICC would rather not have them hear. Your average ICC member is a person who wants, more than anything else, to follow God. When they realise how the ICC disobeys scripture and how their practices damage people they will seriously reconsider their involvement. It is important to note that it is the practices of the ICC which are wrong, not Christianity itself. There is no point "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Contrary to what the ICC will tell its members, they can leave the ICC and still be a Christian.
I really dont use Windows media but my two cents on it is that this fact is so manifest, from the manner in which the Scripture speaks of each, as to need but brief discussion.
:
The mere use of the names Father and Son points out a relation between two persons. That to each of them is ascribed the attributes of character, such as love, hate, goodness, mercy, truth, and justice, which can only exist in, and be exercised by persons, shows separate personality. Neither, except through distinct personal relation, can mutual love be said to be exercised, as by Christ to the Father, John 14:31; and by the Father to Christ, John 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 17:24. Manifestly, also, there must be two persons, when one is said to send, and another to be sent; one to give, and another to be given; one to teach, and another to be taught; one to show, and another to perceive what is shown; one to receive power, and another to bestow it; and one to be declared, with respect to another, to be "the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance," Heb. 1:2; and, because in the form of that other, to have "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God." Phil. 2:6.
We have here, therefore, not the one God, manifesting himself sometimes as Father, and sometimes as Son; but a distinction of persons in the Godhead, in which we are taught that in that Godhead there exists a personal relation of Father to Son, and Son to Father, with a distinct individuality and personality of each.
V. THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON.
The Scriptures designate, by several very similar terms, the third personality revealed in the Godhead. He is called "the Spirit," " the Spirit of God," " the Holy Spirit," " my Spirit," " the Spirit of the Lord," "the Spirit of Christ," " thy good Spirit," " the Spirit of glory, "the Spirit of grace," " the Spirit of knowledge and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord," "the Holy Spirit of promise," "the Spirit of truth," and "the Spirit of wisdom." Christ also called him "the Comforter," and "another Comforter."
The divine Spirit, thus denominated, must either be some power or influence exerted by God, or a distinct person in the Godhead. It cannot be simply the spiritual part of God, as is the spirit in man, for God is not compounded of spirit and body. This is manifest from his immateriality. Neither can it be in any way a part of his spiritual nature, as sometimes a distinction is made in man, between his mind and spirit, or his soul and spirit. The perfect simplicity of God, which forbids all composition, makes this impossible. It is, therefore, either God himself exercising some power or influence, or a person in the Godhead. An examination of the Scripture shows that it is the latter.
1. The evidences of personal action show that the Spirit is not merely a power or influence from God, but is either God himself or a divine person.
(1.) The Scriptures speak of the Spirit as in a state of activity. Gen. 1:2; Matt. 3:16; Acts 8:39. The language in these passages may be anthropomorphic, but the state of activity taught is undoubtedly real.
(2.) They declare that the Spirit teaches and gives instruction. Luke 12:12; John 14:26; 16:8, 13, 14; Acts 10:19; 1 Cor. 12:3.
(3.) The Spirit is also spoken of by them, as a witness of Christ to his people. John 15:26.
(4.) They also assert that he witnesses to believers that they are the children of God, and becomes the earnest of their inheritance. Rom. 8:16; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30.
(5.) He is spoken of as leading the sons of God. Rom. 8:14.
(6.) He is also said to dwell within them in such a way that his presence is that of God. John 14:16, 17; Rom. 8:9, 11; 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19.
(7.) We are taught that he is grieved. Eph. 4: 30.
(8.) Ananias is charged with having lied to him. Acts 5: 3.
(9.) Blasphemy against him is the unpardonable sin. Matt. 12:31, 32.
(10.) He is spoken of as resisted by men. Acts 7:51.
(11.) Also as vexed by them. Isa. 63:10.
(12.) As striving with them. Gen. 6:3.
(13.) As inspiring men. Acts 2:4; 8:29; 13:2; 15:28; 2 Pet. 1:21.
(14.) As interceding for them. Rom. 8:26, 27.
(15.) As bestowing diversities of gifts. 1 Cor. 12:4-11.
In all these cases there is personal activity, thought, and feeling. What is thus declared, cannot be true of a mere power, or influence. The only question can be, whether this person is God, distinct from any plurality of personal relations, or whether he is another personality in the divine nature.
2. The Scriptures show that he is a separate person from the Father and the Son.
(1.) It is stated that he proceeds from the Father. John 15:26. A personal being, proceeding from a person, cannot be that person himself. The proofs above given, therefore, of his personal action and emotion, show that this Spirit is another person.
(2.) He is given, or sent by the Father. John 14:16, 26; Acts 5:32, and by the Son, John 15:26; 16:7; Acts 2:33. He that is sent cannot be identical with him that sends.
(3.) He is called the Spirit of the Father. Eph. 3:16; and also the Spirit of Christ, and of the Son. Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6, perhaps also 2 Thess. 2:8.
(4.) The Son is said to send the Spirit from the Father. John 15:26; and God is said to send the Spirit of the Son. Gal. 4:6.
(5.) The Spirit is distinguished from the Father, and the Son, in passages which directly connect them with each other. Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13; Acts 2:33; Eph. 2:18; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2.
(6.) The personality of the Spirit is also ably argued from "the use of the personal pronouns in relation to him," by Dr.Charles Hodge, Sys. Theol., Vol. I, p. 524. Not only are personal pronouns used by the Spirit, and of the Spirit., but there is a departure from grammatical rule, in the use of a masculine pronoun in connection with a neuter noun, unless the masculine is warranted by the fact, that a person is referred to who may be called "he."
VI. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD.
So completely do the Scriptures identify the Spirit with the Supreme God, that the fact of his personality having been established, his essential divinity will at once be admitted. In the discussion of the Trinity, therefore, the point of necessary proof as to the Spirit is his personality, while that as to the Son is his divinity. The abundant proof of the divinity of the Spirit is found
1. In the passages which call him "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of the Lord," as well as those in which God calls him "my Spirit." These are conclusive, in like manner, as is the divinity of Christ from those which call him the Son of God. The titles "Spirit of God," and "Spirit of the Lord," are each used about twenty-five times in the Bible. "My Spirit" is used in reference to God's Spirit in Gen. 6:3; Prov. 1:23; Isa. 44:3; 59:21 ; Ezek. 36:27; 39:29; Joel 2:28; Haggai 2:5; Zech. 4:6.; Matt. 12:18; Acts 2:17, 18.
2. The writers of the New Testament declare that certain things, which in the Old Testament are ascribed to Jehovah, were said by the Spirit. Compare Acts 28:25-27, and Hebrews 3:7-9, with Isaiah 6:9, and also Heb. 9:8, with Ex. 25:1, and 30:10.
3. The sacred writers of the Old Testament were the messengers of God, and spake for him, yet the influence by which they became such is called in the New Testament the Holy Ghost. Compare Luke 1:70 with 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16, and Heb. 1:1 with 1 Peter 1:11; also Jer. 31:31, 33, 34, with Heb. 10:15-17.
4. The creation of the world is ascribed to the Spirit. Gen. 1: 2; Job 26:13; Ps. 104:30.
5. He is said to search, and know even the deep things of God. 1Cor. 2:10.
6. He is spoken of as omnipresent. Ps. 139:7-10, and omniscient. Ps. 139:11; 1 Cor. 2:10.
7. The divinity of the Spirit is peculiarly proved by his influences over Christ. It having been shown that Christ the Son is God, the connection of the Spirit of God with Christ, though it were only in his human nature, is a convincing proof that the Spirit, which is not a mere power of God, but a person, as we have seen above, must be also God.
(1.) In his birth. Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:31-35.
(2.) Mental and spiritual influences from the Spirit were predicted. Isa. 11:2, and Isaiah 61:1.
(a) And these were fulfilled at his baptism. Matt. 3:16; John 1:33.
(b) At the time of the temptation in the wilderness. Matt. 4:1; Mark 1:12.
(c) In his preaching. Luke 4:14, 18-21.
(d) In his casting out devils. Matt. 12:28.
(3.) This spiritual influence was without measure. John 3:34.
8. The indwelling of the Spirit in the people of God is said to make them the temple of God. Compare 1 Cor. 3:16, and 6:19 with 2 Cor. 6:16, and Eph. 2:22.
9. The Spirit is expressly called God in connection with the falsehood of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 5:3, 4, 9.
VII. THE THREE REVEALED DISTINCTLY.
The scriptural proofs of the personality and divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit having now been considered, it is proper to notice a few passages of Scripture in which the Three are revealed distinctly, by being mentioned, or manifested together. [See others under V. 2, (5), p. 132.]
1. At the baptism of Christ are seen the Son, who has just been baptized, and the "Spirit of God descending as a dove," while, from Heaven above, [and therefore from the Father and not from the Spirit, who is thus manifested distinctly from the Father,] is heard "a voice," "saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3: 17.
2. An equally plain distinction is set forth in the language of Christ, Matt. 28:19, in which he commanded baptism to be performed "into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." This act of baptism is such as to involve the divinity as well as the personality of the Three, for it is an act of worship such as can be paid to God only; it is a profession of faith in God and his righteousness, which can be due to God only; and it is a pledge of fealty, such as God has plainly taught he will share with no other.
3. In our Lord's last discourse he promises to send "the Comforter," "even the Holy Spirit," "from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." Here the Son sends, the Spirit is sent, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. He is also referred to as one "whom the Father will send in my name." See John 14:26, and 15:26.
4. The apostle Paul evidently refers to this same Three, when he writes the Corinthians of "the same Spirit," "the same Lord," and "the same God." 1 Cor. 12: 4-6.
5. The benediction, with which Paul closes his second epistle to the Corinthians, also presents unitedly, yet separately, the same Three; certain blessings are invoked, but with no apparent distinction of rank among those of whom they are asked. If there be any prominence, it is given the rather to the Son than to the Father.
VIII. THESE THREE ARE ONE GOD.
Our definition states that these Three are revealed as without division of nature, essence, or being. It is not intended to indicate, by the use of these three words, any wide distinction between them. They are nearly alike. Yet some distinction exists. By nature is meant that peculiar character of being which makes one kind of being to differ from another. Thus we speak of the divine nature, or the angelic nature, or the human nature, or the brute nature; meaning that peculiarity of life, and character, and personal condition, which makes a God, or an angel, or a man, or a brute. By essence is meant, that peculiarity, in the nature itself, which constitutes what is necessary to its existence, so that we cannot say, in the absence of that essence, that such a nature exists. Take away from human nature that which is its essential quality, and it must cease to be human nature. Being is the essence of any nature becoming actually existent in that nature. In God nature and essence must be identical, because everything in the nature of God is necessary to his existence, and consequently the nature can neither be greater nor less than the essence; indeed they must be the same. Neither can being be separated from the nature and essence of God, though it is not identical with them. The necessity of his actual existence is something inherent in his nature. There could be no such nature without necessarily involving the existence of some person or persons in it.
When it is affirmed, therefore, that there is no "division of nature, essence, or being," all that is meant is simply that there is but one God; that such is the divine nature that it cannot be multiplied, or divided, or distributed, any more than God can be thus divided in his omnipresence with all things. The divine nature is so possessed, by each of the persons in the Trinity, that neither has his own separate divine nature, but each subsists in one divine nature, common to the three. Otherwise the three persons would be three Gods. So also, in that divine nature, its essential quality is not divided in its relation through the nature to the persons. Were this so, there would be three separate parts of the divine nature. But that this cannot be, is manifest from the identity in God of nature and essence. That it is not so, is declared by the Scriptures, when they teach that there is but one God. In God there is also but one divine being, because there is but one divine essence and nature. There is but one that can have actuality of existence. The being of person, not being identical with that of nature, a fact which is true of all natures, created or uncreated, the unity of the nature, and of the essence does not forbid plurality of persons. The threeness of the persons, therefore, does not destroy the unity of the nature or essence, and consequently, not that of the being of God.
The Scriptures teach everywhere the unity of God explicitly and emphatically. There can be no doubt that they reveal a God that is exclusively one. But their other statements, which we have been examining, should assure us that they also teach that there are three divine persons. It is this peculiar twofold teaching, which is expressed by the word "trinity." The revelation to us, is not that of tritheism or three Gods; nor of triplicity, which is threefoldness, and would involve composition, and be contrary to the simplicity of God; nor of mere manifestation of one person in three forms, which is opposed to the revealed individuality of the persons; but it is well expressed by the word trinity, which is declarative, not simply of threeness, but of three-oneness. That this word is not found in Scripture is no objection to it, when the doctrine, expressed by it, is so clearly set forth.
phoenix = absolute best browser.. try it
its called Fresco.
Actually, you are wrong. Usuability experts all agree to NOT use pixel based font sizes. GO look it up.
if SVG players were more widely distributed, as well as some good SVG authoring and animation tools, then we will see the demise of flash
go get it.. this shouldnt even be an issue..
beowu..... ahh nevermind.
Ok, im serious. If you go to http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressrel eases/200107/dmca.html..
Look at the bottom at the last two questions... The links they give to the US Attorneys office go to some amateur porn site. How ironic..
This same article was already posted a few days ago.. Just letting you know!!!
The idea of a Praeadamite race "was first raised to notice by Isaac Peyrere, who in 1655 published his book styled 'Praeadamitae.' He pretended to find his Praeadamites in Rom. 5:l2-14. The heathen, according to him, are the Praeadamites, being, as he supposed, created on the same day with the beasts, and those whose creation is mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis. Adam, the father of the Jews, was not created until a century later, and is the one who is mentioned in the second chapter. Since the time of Peyrere, this hypothesis has been exhibited more connectedly; and has been asserted independently of the authority of Moses; or in other words it has been asserted that the human race is older than Moses represents it." [Knapp's Chris. Theol., p. 185.]
So far as this hypothesis is confined to the past existence of other races of men who had passed away when Adam was created, or who were at least destroyed before or at the flood, it may be admitted as a possibility. There is no direct statement of Scripture to the contrary. Any proof which would make it certain, or even probable, may be admitted. But while this is possibly, it is not probably true. Nothing in Scripture, not even with great violence, can be wrested to its support. The account of creation and the manner in which the Adam there created is spoken of is contrary to any idea that the creations in the first and second chapters of Genesis are of any but the one race. The scientific evidence as to the method of God's creations concurs with the biblical in furnishing no proof that God has ever created the same animals at different periods, or from any other than one original source of each species. While these facts, therefore, are not conclusive against the possibility of more than one creation of human beings, they render it highly improbable.
But so far as this is intended to deny the unity of the present race, and to declare that any portion of it is not of Adamic origin, it is directly contrary to the Word of God.
1. Because the Scriptures trace the race of men now existing back to Noah, and through him to Adam.
2. Because they teach also that all others, except the eight saved in the Ark, were destroyed by the flood. If any other races of men existed before that time, which is not probable, they must then have been destroyed with the others of the Adamic race.
3. They not only speak of all mankind in general as though of this one race, but declare expressly that God "made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation." Acts 17:26. The King James version has "Made of one blood." This is especially emphatic because spoken to the Athenians, who claimed a special, separate origin from others.
4. The Scriptures account for the universal sinful condition of men, by not only a representative, but natural relation to Adam.
5. Salvation from sin is offered through Christ as the second Adam, whose fitness for his work was secured, not only by his representative relation, but also by his assumption of the same nature with man. Therefore his genealogy in Luke is traced back to Adam. It was also to "the whole creation," Mark 16:15, that Christ commanded his gospel to be preached, and "of all the nations," Matt. 28:19, that he ordered disciples to be made.
Science accords with Revelation in teaching the unity of the race.
1. It shows that among all men are the same essential characteristics which make a man. This is denied by none. There is the same outward form and inward structure, and also like mental and moral characteristics.
2. While variations in each of these respects unquestionably exist, they are all within the limits of a single species.
The science of Comparative Zoology shows:
(1.) That species are capable of great variations.
(2.) That the variations may become permanent.
(3.) That under favourable circumstances, with the lapse of time, this permanence becomes more and more fixed, and incapable of return to the original type.
(4.) That, however, there is after all a tendency to return, which develops itself under similar conditions with those of the original state.
(5.) That while offspring from parents of different species is possible, that offspring is itself either altogether unfruitful, or, as Dr. Cabell says, "the fertility is partial and temporary, rarely, if ever, extending through more than two generations." [Unity of Mankind, p.77.]
(6.) That the variations in man are at least equalled by those in other species.
Dr. Bachman asserts that "every vertebrated animal, from the horse down to the canary bird and gold-fish, is subject, in a state of domestication, to very great and striking varieties, and that in the majority of species these varieties are much greater than are exhibited in any of the numerous varieties of the human race." [Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race, p. 181, quoted by Dr. Cabell in Unity of Mankind, p.34.] "Blumenbach," says Cabell, p. 33, "long ago pointed out the great difference between the cranium of the domestic swine and that of the primitive wild boar, and remarked that this difference is quite equal to that which has been observed between the skull of the Negro and the European."
(7.) That the various races of men, when they intermarry, produce offspring which is itself continuously fruitful.
(8.) That while the Negro type of man, the most distinct, and the one showing the greatest variety from the Caucasian or white race, may be traced far back in the monumental history of Egypt, then is no delineation of it in the earliest records for nearly fifteen hundred years. This is admitted by Nott and Gliddon in their Types of Mankind, p. 259, though these writers speak of the Negro "as contemporary with the earliest Egyptians." [See Cabell, p. 91-92.]
3. The science of Comparative Philology also supports the doctrine of the unity of the human race. This science is as yet in its infancy, but has grown vigorously daring the short period of its existence. Already the languages of men have been reduced by some to four, by others to three, and yet by others to two different forms, and the tendency is to connect all language with some one common source. Whether this can be done or not is uncertain. The position is at least conceded that variety in language does not militate against the unity of mankind. It may be impossible to establish absolute unity of speech. The confusion at Babel renders this not improbable. But the investigations of this science show that the idea of several separate physical origins of the race is not true, because the grouping of men, as to physical race, does not correspond with the grouping rendered necessary by their different languages.
Prof. Whitney, who believes that the science of philology cannot now, or ever, decide either for or against this unity, says "it does not seem practicable to lay down any system of physical races which shall agree with any possible scheme of linguistic races. Indo-European, Semitic, Scythian and Caucasian tongues are spoken by men whom the naturalist would not separate from one another as of widely diverse stock; and on the other hand, Scythian dialects of close and indubitable relationship, are in the mouths of people who differ as widely in form and feature, as Hungarians and Lapps, while not less discordance of physical type is to be found among the speakers of various dialects belonging to more than one of the other great linguistic families." [Language and the Study of Language, p. 370.] The fact of this intermingling of dialects and races shows a common origin beyond the time of physical and linguistic changes. Thus do the two sciences, which were once so antagonistic to the doctrine of the unity of mankind, combine with each other to establish its truth.
Most open source software is developed by hackers or people who do it for the challenge or for the fun of it. This usually means that they are not getting PAID for it, or at least they are not getting paid a significatnt amount for it. This makes things dificult when it comes to certain aspects of software development, some of which include... 1) Lack of standardized fail-proof installation methods. * This is mainly because of the UNIX philosophy of having many small parts, etc.... Because MOST open source software depends on dynamic libraries, this brings up all kinds of installation issues for the common user. 2) Lack of technical support * This should be obvious. Furthermore, i think that one our biggest issues is lack of a standardized, simple, user-friendly window manager/GUI application. I think that the Fresco project (http://www.fresco.org) will really advance OSS popularity if it can work out the way they are hoping, and if it doesnt take anothrt 7 years to get a stable release out there.
While it is true that an application could not have caused this problem, is it however possible that a poorly designed application could have allowed to problem to continue as opposed to a well written application may have been able to prevent the triggering of this problem. For example, setting the TTL too high. If this was taken into account correctly wouldn't that have prevented the whole problem in the first place?
thats one of the best ones if seen in a while. YHBT