Center for Environmental Education and Information

CEEI documents polluted streams in the United states by publishing on the web all the Clean Water Act 303(d) lists and documentation.

Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Network and Fund

Provides information and financial support to those working to protect and restore shorelines, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and other aquatic habitats in the Great Lakes Basin. Includes news and grant information.

Ground Water Atlas of the United States

Online USGS publication describes U.S. ground-water resources by region. Covers the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

USGS - Arsenic in ground water of the United States

Publications, maps, and data on arsenic in U.S. groundwater.

USGS -- Water Resources of the United States

Home page for water resources information from the U.S. Geological Survey. Topics include ground water, surface water, water use, water quality, acid rain, toxic substances hydrology.

USGS -- Water Resources of the United States

Information about water resources from the U.S. Geological Survey. Topics include ground water, surface water, water use, water quality, acid rain, toxic substances hydrology.

Watershed Information Network

EPA guide to information and services for protecting and restoring water resources. Includes state and local watershed information.

Bart Goddard wrote:

> wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:
>
> >> Not necessily. Just because sin damns us doesn't mean good works
> >> save us.
> >
> > Is denial of the Trinity an unforgiveable sin? Can one be saved and
> > yet deny the DoT?
>
> In the way I mean here, "no". The unforgivable sin is to
> reject what the Holy Spirit has convicted one of.

Can one be convicted that Jesus died for one's sins and rose from the
dead, and yet not be convicted of other doctrinal points?

> And what the Holy Spirit convicts one of is the Gospel. The doctrine of
> the Trinity isn't just a sort of philosophical conclusion, but _an
> expression of the Gospel_.

That's what you need to prove. I made a brief attempt in another
thread, but I'm still not convinced, because I don't think that we are
saved by our having a correct understanding of doctrine.

>
> (We get into trouble when we try to "understand the Trinity",
> when we should, rather, let the doctrine of the Trinity
> explain God to us.)
>
> If someone denies the Trinity in the same way as the Pharisees
> denied Jesus (saying He cast out demons by dint of His
> association with Satan, that is, with the miraculous evidence
> right before them, and knowing that they were wrong) with
> the evidence supported by the miracles of the Apostles,
> then, darn tootin', he's going to Hell.

The Pharisees used their claim to deny that Jesus died for their sins
and that He rose again. I don't see the Trinity deniers doing this, so
I don't think the cases are parallel.

>
>
>
> >> After all, isn't the unforgivable sin the act of rejecting what the
> >> Holy Spirit testifies to?
> >
> > Sure. But all of us hold incorrect doctrine at one point or another.
> > You do, Matthew does, Steve does, and I do.
>
> Well, you, Matthew and Steve, anyway.

I'll let you and Matthew fight that one out. I get the popcorn
concession.

> This is again (at least partly) a quibble on the word "hold". In the
> Nicene Creed, this "hold" is a matter of the heart, more than of the mind.

An irrelevant distinction, IMO, unless you have an argument to the
contrary.

>
> Further, the worry is that a bit of incorrect doctrine will grow up to
> become full-blown denial.

You can't say someone isn't redeemed because of the worry of some future
possibility that may never happen.

> Eventually the notion that we shouldn't baptize infants grows into works
> righteousness which in turn denies Jesus' act.

Baloney. Infants shouldn't be baptized. Are you going to tel