Prince Charles makes a correct decision

From CNN news.

LONDON, England (AP) -- A royal spokesman says Britain's Prince Charles has had a small non-cancerous growth removed from his face.
A spokesman at Charles' official residence, Clarence House, said Friday that the operation was a minor and routine procedure. Charles had the growth removed from the side of his nose late Thursday afternoon.
He had covered up the scar with small white bandage on the bridge of his nose during a tree-planting ceremony Friday at his country home in Highgrove.

Evidently it was because the growth was non-cancerous that Charles stooped to nasty old "western" medicine.
because if it had been cancerous I'm sure he would have stuck by his principles (geddit?) and used Gerson Therapy, which eschews chemotherapy in favour of 13 fruit juices a day, coffee enemas and weekly injections of vitamins. (The Guardian)
Mind you, even though it wasn't cancerous, I'm surprised he submitted himself to invasive surgery given his enthusiasm for alternate therapies. Surely he would have entrusted the removal of facial growths to acupuncture, or homeopathy?
I'm not anti-royal, or even particularly anti-Charles. I'm anti people who are in positions of influence being hypocritical and promoting all manner of woo and ant- scientific bullshit, and then taking refuge in tried and tested scientific treatment when the crunch comes.

Jesus' less famous brother, Charles

Legend has it that Joseph of Aramathea took the Holy Grail and Mary Magdalene to France. The Magdalene was said to have been married to the Christ, and the Holy Grail is said to symbolise their blood line, rather than being a physical object.
I now have firm evidence that members of Jesus' family did indeed make it to France, in order to found a cornichon preserving business.

Charles Christ, part of the SOCIETE CHRIST (web address www.christ.fr) is a family business. The business motto is "de père en fils" or "from father to son". I rest my case.

Anne Frank burns for eternity

Christian theology regarding judgement goes like this:
God is perfect.
When we violate His standard imparted to us through the 10 commandments, our offence is infinite because it is against in infinite God
Therefore infinite suffering is a just punishment.

I have paraphrased the wise "truthwar" who has a blog at The Truth War.

He has made this post on Anne Frank because the topic of the merits of Anne Frank and Hitler, and their eternal suffering has been recently discussed in the comments section on Ray Comfort's weird little blog. The synchronicity of subject matter and shared theology is too strong. Read his blog and Comforts and you'll see the same phraseology. For example they share this odd concept of "false converts".

They, and their supporters believe that, since what we do in life, ie our "works" count for nothing in the eyes of perfect Yahweh, they are both, Anne frank and Hitler, probably suffering eternally in hell.

And they think this is a good thing. Well, it must be a good thing mustn't it? It's Yahweh's plan, and Yahweh's justice.

Credit where credit's due, to both truthwar & Comfort - they do allow comment on their blogs. A rare thing amongst their kind.

Genesis busted by a spruce

Scientists have found a cluster of spruces in the mountains in western Sweden which, at an age of 8,000 years, may be the world's oldest living trees.

Reuters

"These were the first woods that grew after the Ice Age," said Lars Hedlund, responsible for environmental surveys in the county of Dalarna and collaborator in climate studies there.

"That means that when you speak of climate change today, you can in these (trees) see pretty much every single climate change that has occurred."

So, some trees that are 2000 years older than the age of the Earth (If you are a young earth creationist). I'm sure this won't be a problem for them because they'll claim that God created these trees "pre-aged" in the same way he made the stars with their light already reaching us.
But, hang on, what about the flood? A global flood of such catastrophic proportions that it was responsible for the Grand Canyon would have destroyed these trees.

These hardy little bushes are living proof that the Bible can not be taken as literal truth.

Religions can build peace

Well, it would be nice wouldn't it?

Yesterday, 10th April 2008, at the Montserrat Monastery near Barcelona, The Foundation for a Culture of Peace organised an international meeting on the role of religions in the building of peace.
Pictured here speaking is Former Iranian President and President of the Foundation for Dialogue Among Civilisations Mohammad Khatami. He is next to Federico Mayor Zaragoza from Spain, who is president of the Foundation for a Culture of Peace and former director-general of UNESCO, and next to him is the Abbot of Montserrat Josep Maria Soler.



Colour me cynical, but I'm not holding my breath.

The walking snake

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life"

This curse is only a hardship if the snake had the ability to walk. If the snake was already crawling then it's hardly a curse.

But look! What's this? A fossil of a 2 legged snake. Only one leg was visible on the fossil, but an amazing scanning instrument that can "see" into the rock, confirmed the presence of the second leg.



Would it seem that the bible has been proved correct by fossil evidense? It would, if we could account for the discrepency between Eupodophis descouensi living in the Late Cretaceous - 92 million years ago, and Wile. E. Snake from Genesis making his appearance some 6 thousand years ago.

We won't mention the fact that snakes don't eat dust.

A test.

Thousands of miles away, someone makes a film that you disagree with and upsets you.

What is your response?
a. Ignore it, it's just a film, these things come and go, it'll all be forgotten by the end of the year.
b. Write a letter your your local newspaper expressing your indignation.
c. Boycott the products and services of that country
or
d. Go trash a local cinema. One that isn't even showing the movie. And probably never will, chances are this kind of film wouldn't ever be aired anywhere in your country. Beat up some of the people in the cinema. Even though they may well agree with you. Vandalise the cars outside the cinema.

Did you pick d? Well done, that is the correct response for any self-respecting muslim to take over the film Fitna.