More and more Christians choose a church not on the basis of its denomination, but on the basis of more practical matters. Is the nursery easy to find? Do I like the music? Are there support groups for those grappling with addiction?

This trend is a natural extension of the American evangelical experiment. After all, evangelicalism is about the fundamental message of Christianity-the evangel, the gospel, literally the "good news" of God's kingdom arriving in Jesus Christ-not about denomination building.

The revivalists wanted to get back to basics, to recover the centrality of a personal relationship with Jesus. "Being a member of a church doesn't make you a Christian," the ubiquitous evangelical pulpit cliché went, "any more than living in a garage makes you a car." Thus these evangelical ministries tended not to talk about those issues that might divide their congregants. They avoided questions like: Who should be baptized and when? What does the Lord's Supper mean? Should women be ordained? And so on.

For example, artists such as Keith and Kristen Getty and Sojourn Music are reaching a new generation with music written for and performed by local congregations. Yes, prosperity preacher Joyce Meyer sells her book "Eat the Cookie, Buy the Shoes," which encourages Christians to "lighten up" by eating cookies and buying shoes (seriously). But, at the same time, Alabama preacher David Platt is igniting thousands of young people with his book "Radical," which calls Christians to rescue their faith by lowering their standard of living and giving their time and money to Church-based charities.

The date for Armageddon has been set, and it's not going to happen in 2012.

In 2004, NASA scientists announced that there was a chance that Apophis, an asteroid larger than two football fields, could smash into Earth in 2029. A few additional observations and some number-crunching later, astronomers noted that the chance of the planet-killer hitting Earth in 2029 was nearly zilch.

Now Russian scientists estimate Apophis will collide with Earth on April 13, 2036. These reports conflict on the probability of such a doomsday event, but the question remains: How scared should we be?

"Technically, they're correct, there is a chance in 2036 [that Apophis will hit Earth]," said Donald Yeomans, head of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office. However, that chance is just 1-in-250,000, Yeomans said.

NASA was quick to discount Russia's fears, however. "The situation is that in 2029, April 13, [Apophis] flies very close to the Earth, within five Earth radii, so that will be quite an event, but we've already ruled out the possibility of it hitting at that time," Yeomans told Life's Little Mysteries, Space.com's sister site.

 "On the other hand, if it goes through what we call a keyhole during that close Earth approach     then it will indeed be perturbed just right so that it will come back and smack Earth on April 13, 2036," Yeomans said.

The more likely scenario is this: Apophis will make a fairly close approach to Earth in late 2012 and early 2013, and will be extensively observed with ground-based optical telescopes and radar systems. If it seems to be heading on a destructive path, NASA will devise the scheme and machinery necessary to change the asteroid's orbit, decreasing the probability of a collision in 2036 to zero, Yeomans said.

The deal still has to be approved by shareholders and regulators, who may balk at the large market share controlled by the new company. The firms said that together they will be the largest exchange group in the world.

"The increasing globalization and interconnectedness of capital markets, and the rapidly growing presence of alternative trading venues that operate with less transparency and far fewer regulatory requirements, will position the new company as a true global player well placed to drive the long-term strength and competitiveness of transparent and regulated markets," Niederauer said.

The companies didn't say what the merged entity would be called. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) has insisted that "New York" should come first in the new name.

CNN clearly understands what the IMF is trying to accomplish with this new report.  The following is how CNN's recent story about the new IMF report begins....

"The International Monetary Fund issued a report Thursday on a possible replacement for the dollar as the world's reserve currency."

That is exactly what the IMF intends to do. They intend to have SDRs replace the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency.

Globalist organizations such as the IMF say that having a true global currency would facilitate world trade, it would make currency wars less likely, it would stabilize the global economy and it would make the rest of the globe less reliant on what is going on in the United States.

An IMF paper entitled "Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability" that was published last year even proposed that a future global currency be called the "Bancor" and that a future global central bank could be put in charge of issuing it....

"A global currency, bancor, issued by a global central bank (see Supplement 1, section V) would be designed as a stable store of value that is not tied exclusively to the conditions of any particular economy. As trade and finance continue to grow rapidly and global integration increases, the importance of this broader perspective is expected to continue growing."

The ominously nicknamed Kill Switch bill is sure to be a flashpoint of discussion at the RSA Conference, the nation's largest gathering of computer-security experts that takes place here this week. The bill - crafted by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Tom Carper, D-Del. - aims to defend the economic infrastructure from a cyberterrorist attack. But it has free-speech advocates and privacy experts howling over the prospect of a government agency quelling the communication of hundreds of millions of people.

"This is all about control, an attempt to control every aspect of our existence," says Christopher Feudo, a cybersecurity expert who is chairman of SecurityFusion Solutions. "I consider it an attack on our personal right of free speech. Look what recently occurred in Egypt."

A 1934 federal law that created the Federal Communications Commission allows the president to "authorize the use or control" of communications outlets during moments of emergency of "public peril or disaster." The Lieberman-led bill would be considered a specific extension of that and let the nation's chief executive prioritize communications on the Internet, says Fertik.

A provision in the bill lets the president take limited control during an emergency and decide restrictions. "It, essentially, gives the president a loaded gun," Fertik says.

"Say there is a mounted attack from a terrorist group on the Internet," Fertik says. "(The law) could present the president with a kill switch option. But what are the conditions, and how far does (the law) go?"