Hi,
On this page you will find lessons I have taught, essays I have written, and sermons I have preached.
Some of them are completed and some are not. Many were written while I was at seminary, and are written
to that standard and requirement. In such cases some things have been left out in order to meet maximum word limits etc.
Click on the link below to go to the appropriate page.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
KPICASA_GALLERY
and this is testing my remote API to see if I can publish from my desktop..
well, i moved away from google (blogger) because I can run my own site nicely on this server.
I also wanted to see if wordpress was “all that” – its decent, but its not user friendly enough for some of my customers, so… its ok for me 😛
The question was asked on the blog Jesus Creed.
The answer is YES, YES, 1000x YES.
Havent you read the bible?
Lets get some facts out there.
1. Adam is made in God’s likness (tselem – means to represent, like a viceroy or governor).
2. As a result, Adam has eternal life (tree of life (gen 2:9 ‘tree that gives life’)
3. Adam disobeys God, no longer ‘tselem’ he is kicked out of Eden and no longer has access to the tree that gives life, and access to ‘tselem’ is blocked (Gen 3:22-24)
4. Gen 5 states that Adam was “tselem” of God, but now his son Seth is “tselem” of Adam.
5:1 This is the record of the family line of Adam.
When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 5:2 He created them male and female; when they were created, he blessed them and named them “humankind.”
5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. 5:4 The length of time Adam lived after he became the father of Seth was 800 years; during this time he had other sons and daughters. 5:5 The entire lifetime 10 of Adam was 930 years, and then he died.
Adam’s nature had a fundamental change. He went from “life” (eternal) to “life” (finite) – Adam began to decay.
Its that simple. We are all born into a world where we do not live in Eden. We do not have access to the “tree that gives life”. We are all born into a world where we are in the “tselem” of Adam.
It is only through the New Adam, Jesus Christ, that we have access to the tree that gives life, and are able to be “tselem” of God, once more.
American Hotrod
I’ve been watching this show a bit.
Its really quite disturbing how the staff is treated on this worksite. I cant believe that anyone would want to show how badly they treat people.
It appears that staff are working 7 days a week to meet impossible deadlines that Boyd Coddington routinely takes on. Each deadline seems shorter, staff seem to implode under the pressure.
Setting people up to fail is pure evil. The fact that they manage to meet any deadline seems good luck rather than good planning. It makes me sick. You’re worried about sweatshops in China, and here you have one celebrated on TV… great.
a conversation with iGod
Me:
hi
God:
Hello. What is your name?
Me:
geoff
God:
Hey geoff.
Me:
whats your name?
God:
My name is God.
Me:
oh, right. really?
God:
Hey. I am glad we agree. For real.
Me:
some people think you dont exist
God:
What kind of people?
Me:
silly people
God:
No I am God.
Me:
thats what you say…
God:
” No I am God.”? I said it.
Me:
true
God:
You and I are on the same wavelength, geoff.
Me:
yeah, but can you prove it?
God:
How can I help you? It is self-evident.
Me:
you can help me?
God:
How can I help you?
Me:
yes, how?
God:
Dude! Myself programmed me for it.
Me:
well, do it then
God:
Interesting. Do you mean “It”?.
Me:
yes… it or me
God:
I get it. “It” being what?
Me:
me..
God:
“”It” being what?”? you geoff?
Me:
yes
God:
Uh.
Me:
well?
God:
Well what?
Me:
you gonna do it?
God:
That’s good information: geoff said I gonna do it.
Me:
I give up, you must be the jesusonian god
God:
Why?: geoff said give up you must be the jesusonian god.
http://www.titane.ca/igod/ <-- hehe
Life on other planets
Yet again, the “christian-philosophy” mailing list owner, brother Dave the jesusonian comes up with the goods:
> Brother Dave wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Brother Dave’s new comments at the bottom.
> >
> > — In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
> >
wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Brother Dave wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Christian Philosophy members,
> > > > Page-812 [Some societal rules on a neighboring planet, which is very similar in problems and development to Earth] Marriage and divorce laws are uniform throughout the nation. Marriage before twenty [twenty years on that planet may be about 30 years here]
> > > Dave.. a neighbouring planet?
> > Geoff,
Yes. In our local universe of 700,000 local universes (just in
this beginning Supreme age) there are in each local universe 100 Constellations with many human inhabited planets, and each constellation has 100 systems of 1000 human planets when completed.
Our system is young and has now only 619 different planets with human life. This neighboring planet mentioned is in our administrative system of planets; but most likely several to hundreds of light years away. One light year is about six trillion miles. 6,000,000,000,000 miles. Even more shocking is another revealed statement that there is another human planet in very close proximity to us ! I interpret this to mean in our solar system ! OOOEEEOOOEEE (“Outer Limits” music)
Because Earth is still in a partial spiritual quarantine, I do not believe that any other humans from other planets have yet physically visited us in “UFO” spaceships. Most other inhabited planets are much older in life development, and thus are far ahead of us in spiritual, moral, social and intellectual capacities. They are wise and obey the quarantine to stay away from visting us (savages) on earth. “View from afar, but don’t visit Earthlings!” and “Danger! Don’t feed them.” Ha ha When we much progress here into God’s and Jesus’ Light and Life, we will then see them come visit us. They might smile equivalent and say “goo goo” to us baby sons of God on Earth just advancing into Light and Life.
Oh, on the very good word “danger” that I typed above, why do the stupid liberal news media persons now use “at risk” or “harms way” ?? I refuse to use those silly new terms and also (other more liberal lingo words) “ludicrous” and “extremist”
Peace and progress, without UFO visitations,
Brother Dave
Oh My Lord. What can I say? It sounds like a cross between scientology and new age baloney. I feel quite sorry for him.
alcohol….
So many people seem to be complaining lately about the state of drunk people, and the mess they leave behind.. these same people probably hate violence (especially family violence), people dying in car accidents, etc. And they probably enjoy a glass of vino or a beer with their mates too.
What gets me is that this is hypocritical. If you go and drink, you condone drinking. You say “its ok for me” – and the next guy says “well it must be ok for me too then” – then he gets drunk and goes home and beats his wife.
If we want to really do something about it we should voluntarily stop drinking, stop being hypocrites, and stop condoning this thing which causes so much evil in society.
note: I am not against drinking, a glass of red wine for example has proved benefits, BUT I think that the benefit is outweighed by the evil, so I refuse to be seen to support it.
ps… tomato.
I wonder..
Yesterday I watched a debate between W L Craig and James Crossley. The debate was “was the tomb empty” – that is, is it historical fact?
Craig argued in the affirmative. Although he was a bit crusty, his argument was always reasoned, and well constructed. James Crossley, on the other hand, started off with a decent enough argument saying that the historicity of the empty tomb cant be proved from the gospels. The rest of his argument was pretty much adhoc and pointless.
The thing is, the empty tomb is proof that Jesus gained victory over the final enemy, death. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, that is, if it is not fact, to which the empty tomb attests, then the Christian faith has nothing. Paul Himself says this:
1Cor 15:12 Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, 9 how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. 15:15 Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised. 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins. 15:18 Furthermore, those who have fallen asleep 10 in Christ have also perished. 15:19 For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone.
It seems to me that unless Dr Crossley holds on one hand, that the tomb can not be proved to have been empty, but on the other hand believes that He too will be raised to eternal life in the manner of Christ, which is the hope of our salvation, then Mr Crossley must be seen to be denying Christ. I dont know if He does, I guess I shall have to investigate his writings further.
redundant
well, it appears that friday a week ago I lost my job.
I should have written something earlier, but i’ve been looking after sick baby and writing a sermon.
So, if you know of any Linux sys admin work, drop me a line 🙂
My Sermon is going to be on Rom 6:1-11 – the reality of the new life. Its sort of ironic I know 😛 I’ll post some more on it as I go.
Thanks to Deus Ex Malcontent for this:
hahaha… thats all I have to say
Greenhouse gases… hah.
from:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
This article is excellent:
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat island” effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
was there death before the fall?
The simple answer is, we dont “really” know.
What we do know is that contrary to popular belief, God gave ALL things (including animals) for Adam to eat in Gen 1. This means he had the right to kill them.
It would also seem illogical that God designed all animals to be vegetarians, then converted them to carnivores and redesigned the whole ecological system at the fall. Rather, God’s perfectly designed killing machines always had a place in creation however there was a change that occurred in the fall.
Firstly lets note that in Gen 3:15 we’re told there will be enmity between the snake and the woman. This, like all of the eden story works on 2 levels, the “real human history” aspect (real trees, people, animals, rivers, etc), and the theological; the snake is evil, the tree gives eternal life, etc.
On the human history level, the relationship (and this is what the Gen 3:15-21 passage has as a main theme) has broken down between the animals and humans. Its gone from a harmonious leadership relationship before the fall, to a relationship of hatred. This passage details also the breakdown of relationship between the woman and man, man and the earth, humanity and God.
Secondly, in Gen9:2 we’re told that the relationship between human and animals is now one of “fear and dread” – terminology reserved for warfare. The animal kingdom is in fear and dread of humans – literally “at war”.
So, we dont find that they have changed in any other way, only that their relationship to humanity has changed. No longer harmonious. As we seek to have dominion over the world, we find we’re at war with those whom we seek to subdue. The lion that once wouldnt care if a human walked past, now reacts in fear.
More from Christian-philosophy
Well..
Brother Dave is at it again. His last message is so ironic that it took the creases right out of my trousers (see what I did with that?). Here is what he said:
Dear Sister Karen and all sincere Christians here,
Yes, this IS a Christian Philosophy board. No conversion attempts to non-Christian religions are allowed, nor links to websites attempting same.
Thus, I deleted Salina’s message.
Peace and progress in our Sovereign Creator Jesus Christ,
Brother Dave
Its Ironic in that Brother Dave is trying to convert us all to his non-christian “Jesusonian” religion. I posted that to the list of course, but I doubt it will get through. In fact, it will probably get me banned.. heh.
photos of my leg infection
Here are photos of my leg infection and recovery.
illnessessess
*sigh*
well, two and a half weeks ago, I woke up shaking and shivering. I knew i had an infection in my leg (again), so I held off until first light, and went straight to the doctor. He referred me to hospital.
The next 3 days I had a temperature of 40degC. No sleep. The next 3 days I had a massive asthma attack AND a temperature (around 38). Still no sleep. Here endeth the first week of misery.
the next 4 days my temperature stabilised and i spent 99% of it on my back with my leg above the level of my heart. Finally started to get 1-2 hours sleep a day. On the 10th day I got about 4 hours sleep which sorta restored me to normality.
I returned home then, and have been here for a week now, still lying with my foot in the air. Trying to do some work from home because I cant afford to lose pay.
God has been good, he provided me with wonderful nurses, especially Nancy. I’ve had a lot of time to pray and reflect on life, especially my priorities.
The Ectoplasmic Panhellenic Investigation
Thats the name of an episode of “The Middleman” – which I have never watched, however, I am intrigued by the name.
I was quite disappointed in the lost finale. Although it explained alot of things, it didnt really finish on a “cliff hanger”.
Still, it was good for sure.
I’ve been discussing progressive revelation with some folks recently. Their idea is that over time as human understanding evolves, our understanding of God evolves also. The problem with this idea is that their understanding of God can evolve into something that doesnt reflect “what God is”.
You see, if God was like “this”, and over time human understanding evolves and we now think God is like “–that–“, we have a problem. “This” and “–that–” are two completely different things which suggests that “this” was wrong in the first place, which suggests that “–that–“, an evolution of “this” is also wrong, which leads to “God does not exist at all”.
Progressive revelation should suggest that we comprehend more about what “this” is. As soon as it evolves into “–that–” it cancels itself out.