tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-206389092024-03-13T12:13:03.213-03:00Godly ScienceMy journey as a scientist who is also a follower of God. This is about my life, and everything in it. God, science, love, life, and whatever else I think about.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-83723963102737345692013-04-09T22:25:00.000-03:002013-04-10T09:16:54.979-03:00Why I wear barefoot shoesTwo weeks ago I ordered <a href="http://www.softstarshoes.com/adult-shoes/runamoc/dash-runamoc-all-smooth-chocolate.html">SoftStar Shoes Runamoc Dash</a>, and this evening, I laced up a new pair of <a href="http://xeroshoes.com/">Xero Shoes huarches</a>. Why would an overweight, non-runner, have ordered two pairs of "barefoot" shoes?? In the spring of 2010, a lot of publicity was given to the barefoot running phenomenon. I was interested, because I had a lot of knee problems growing up, and of course one of the claims of barefoot running was to help with various foot, leg, and knee problems. I was doing a lot of reading about it, and found "Invisible Shoes", a newly created enterprise out of Denver, Colorado. For $20, they would send a sheet of <a href="http://xeroshoes.com/shop/diy-kits/diy-vibram/">Vibram sole</a> that you then cut out to make your shoes, keeping them on with the included nylon string.<br />
<br />
That first summer, I didn't do a lot of walking, but mostly drove to work, and any time I had to walk any distance in my new shoes ended up with a lot of stretched skin on the balls of my feet. But I still really liked wearing them. It required me to walk in a completely different way, and seemed to help with some foot issues.<br />
<br />
By the second summer I had figured out the bus system in the city, and was walking 0.7 miles each way to the bus stop (1.4 miles each day, sometimes more). Very quickly I got used to the shoes, and I started to notice that I was able to walk further, without pain, and stand for much longer periods. Seriously, prior to this I could maybe be on my feet for an hour before developing serious pain in my knees, but by mid summer I could easily be on my feet for 3 hours without experiencing major pain.<br />
<br />
I put so many miles on those shoes that I started to develop a much thinner spot on one where the ball of my foot struck the ground first, and I broke the laces on each shoe twice where they are held on by a knot on the bottom. I wore them everywhere, and really enjoyed them. It was amazing to actually feel the ground you were walking on. The one time I went hiking on nature trails with them was awesome!<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, winter came, and my feet do not like the cold (even the little bit of cold we get here in Louisville, KY). I reluctantly put up my Invisible Shoes, and went back to my sneakers. The following summer, I remained in my sneakers, dealing with sweaty feet, and sore feet, legs and knees. Last fall, I resolved to find a solution that would enable me to wear barefoot type shoes most of the year.<br />
<br />
I went to my local outdoor gear stores and looked at options, finding nothing I really liked, or considered truly barefoot (no more than 6mm of contact, and no drop from heel to toe). I did however find <a href="http://www.softstarshoes.com/">SoftStar Shoes</a>, and their various options for barefoot style shoes. This past Christmas season, I had some extra money, and four weeks ago I finally ordered the Runamoc Dash. It took about two weeks to have it made and ship, but it was worth the wait. I have an extremely comfortable, good looking barefoot shoe, that I can wear pretty much anywhere. This includes the gym, as my gym has a no open toe shoe policy.<br />
<br />
I had also kept abreast of the changes at Invisible Shoes, with their switch to Xero Shoes, and a more curved sole that kept one from catching the toe on the ground (a problem I had, especially when I got tired). Last week I ordered a pair, and I have just finished punching the toe hole and lacing them up. This is good, because the temperature just started climbing into the 80s today, and it will be nice to have a very cool pair of barefoot shoes.<br />
<br />
If you want to try barefoot shoes, why not give the Xero option a try. It is relatively inexpensive, and you might like them so much you want to get a pair of SoftStar's. Oh, and they don't tend to develop a funky smell like some other brands.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Some Caveats</h4>
<div>
As with most things, there are always some warnings, things to take note of that I forgot to mention. If you look around at other barefoot sites, you will probably see some of these, but these are </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>If you don't modify how you walk in these, your feet and legs will probably take a beating from heel striking on pavement. Without any cushion, all the force gets transmitted up your leg, and it will hurt.</li>
<li>If you do change how you walk to a mid- or fore-foot landing, it will take time for your legs to adjust. Man did my feet and my upper calves (just behind my kneecap) ache the first few days in my Dash's, and my calves would start to cramp after just 1/2 mile of walking. But after a week or so, I don't have any problems. Don't expect to walk 2 miles or run a marathon immediately after switching.</li>
<li>Some people may develop more problems. As usual, as more people are trying barefoot running / walking, some people are finding it is probably not for them. Whether this is really true, or they just never figure out how to change their stride, is open. But that's why I would try the inexpensive option first.</li>
<li>You will probably walk slower, and / or take more steps to move the same distance. If you are coming down on your mid- to fore-foot, you can't take as big a step. So it may take effort to keep up with others who are walking in regular shoes. On the other hand, more steps means more energy, which probably amounts to a higher rate of caloric consumption (or those of use with a spare tire to lose can hope anyway).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
Cross posted from my research blog <a href="http://robertmflight.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-i-wear-barefoot-shoes.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-7489448487518886762012-10-09T14:07:00.001-03:002012-10-09T14:07:06.326-03:00Louisville Reformation ConferenceOn Friday Oct 19, and Saturday Oct 20, Midlane Park ARP will be hosting the <a href="http://reformationconference.blog.com/">Louisville Reformation conference</a>! If you want to hear more about Spurgeon and the controversies he faced, you'll want to come to this.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-87790636618671186152012-07-27T10:04:00.001-03:002012-07-27T10:04:56.831-03:00Audio out from embedded videos<h1>Why?</h1><br />
There is an awful lot of interesting material from both christian and gentile sources locked up in embedded web videos. I know a lot of people enjoy watching debates, presentations and such on the internet, but I am not one of them. I much prefer to have an audio file that I can put on my iPod so that I can listen to it while I am out running errands, riding the bus to and from work, etc.<br />
<br />
So I am often disappointed when very interesting material gets locked up in a non-downloadable video on a web-page, with no audio download option (an example of that would be <a href="http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/">here</a>). With that example, I don't really want to take the time to sit down for up to 3 hours (including the QA) at an internet connected device and watch it, especially when there is not really anything special about the video portion, the audio will do just fine.<br />
<br />
I recently came across a nice little workflow to generate mp3 audio from these videos. Note: I am not advocating piracy!! If the videos are hosted somewhere, you should not obtain them to put them up somewhere else! However, the full video will get onto your device in the process of watching it, so I don't see anything wrong with using the below detailed method. <br />
<br />
<h1>How?</h1><br />
This process uses two pieces of software, the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/unplug/">"UnPlug" Firefox plugin</a>, and <a href="http://www.videolan.org/index.html">VLC video player</a>. <br />
<br />
1. On a page with the videos you want, you simply click the "UnPlug" icon in the "add-on bar", and it will bring up the files available for download. <br />
<br />
2. You hit the download button for each file of interest, and wait for the downloads to stop.<br />
<br />
3. Open VLC, and under "Media" -> go to "Convert / Save". Add the files you want to convert to audio.<br />
<br />
4. After hitting "Convert / Save", fill in the destination file, and choose the type of output you want. For pure audio, the MP4 and MP3 options are near the bottom. If you want different options than the default for that file type, high the "tools" icon just to the right to make changes.<br />
<br />
5. "Start", and wait for your file to finish. <br />
<br />
It should be noted that VLC can convert many different video formats, as long as there is not a copyright protection on the video. It will also save and convert streaming audio or video as well.<br />
<br />
Credit: <a href="http://www.michael-noll.com/blog/2010/01/20/how-to-extract-audio-from-flv-files-using-vlc/comment-page-1/#comment-44179">Original Source</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-80330804735053719812012-04-19T12:42:00.002-03:002012-04-19T12:42:59.486-03:00Kindle EjectI was trying to get my Kindle to charge on my Windows 7 machine today, and noticed some funny behavior. When you plug your Kindle into a W7 machine, it mounts as an external drive so you can drag and drop files to it. The screen says that to have it charging, you need to "eject" it. This does not mean to go to the USB logo in your taskbar and click on "Safely Remove Hardware"!! It actually means go to the drive in Windows Explorer, right click on it, and hit "Eject"!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-57691526780445578422012-03-06T22:36:00.004-04:002012-03-06T22:36:54.796-04:00Research BlogMy original intent when I started this blog was to have a place to talk about anything, as the title says, my life, science, God, etc. However, I recently began efforts to create space that highlights my <a href="http://robertmflight.blogspot.com/">professional interests and abilities</a>. In addition, 99% of what I post here tends to be about my thoughts regarding the human condition, and posts about new software and other things directly related to my work I think stand out like a sore thumb. So, I have created another blog where I will mostly post about new software, articles, research methods, etc, and keep that out of here. That does not mean that you will not see another science related post in this space, as science is part and parcel of what I do. But certain posts, such as <a href="http://rflight.blogspot.com/2011/08/rstudio.html">this one</a>, or <a href="http://rflight.blogspot.com/2008/12/back-to-firefox.html">this one</a> would be much less likely here, but would be more likely on my research blog.<br />
<br />
Hopefully I will make more time for blogging period. It just takes so much time to write! Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-41545122755210232942011-09-06T23:34:00.000-03:002011-09-07T08:42:48.797-03:00Book Review: The World-Tilting GospelFor those who are unaware, <a href="http://bibchr.blogspot.com/">Dan Phillips</a> of <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/">TeamPyro</a> fame recently released a book: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/the-world-tilting-gospel-ebook/dp/b005cq2zim/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=utf8&m=ag56twvu5xwc2">"The World-Tilting Gospel"</a> on the masses of evangelicalism. This is Dan’s great attempt at presenting the fundamentals of the Gospel using the whole Bible, and pretty much nothing but the Bible. Dan has taken issue (as many others have) with much of the evangelical church’s watering down or outright refutation of straightforward Biblical teaching. For whatever reason, Dan was kind enough to send me a copy to review after I responded to a call for reviewers on the TeamPyro blog.<br />
<br />
<b>Short review: </b>This book is a great overview of Biblical teaching, that not only provides solid exegesis of the whole of the Gospel, but in the process also refutes much (maybe all?) of the major branches of flawed teaching that have infected the modern evangelical church. I would recommend this book for new Christians (I wish I had had it when I was converted, it might have saved me much grief in my first church), those who are curious about the message of the Bible, and those who are in a church where false teaching comes from the pulpit. It is also a good read for any Christian, as a reminder of what the Gospel is and isn't (don't we often need this reminder?), and how it should be constantly changing our lives. I know I was personally challenged by many sections, and I hope others will be to. This book is not a replacement for reading the Bible (and by that I mean reading the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments) for oneself, but it is a great summary of what is contained therein, and what it means for you and for me. Hint: God does not promise you your best life now! The longer review continues below.<br />
<br />
<b>First</b>, I do want to say something about style. This book was very easy for me to read, and I think it would be very easy for anyone with an understanding of English to read. Dan is very good at combining different styles of writing, mixing fictional case studies, question and answer, personal anecdotes, relevant references to contemporary culture, and historical quotes (not always together in the same chapter) together in such a way that everything just fits and flows. I realize that Dan would probably say that is all due to the work of a good editor, but an editor can only make good use of the underlying materials.<br />
<br />
<b>Second</b>, I appreciate that Dan makes his case using ALL of the Bible, with many scripture references and examples from both the Old and New Testaments. In the reformed camp this is generally a common approach, but I would imagine that to many of those who pick this book up off the shelf at their local bookstore, this may come as a shock that the God in the Old Testament is the same as the God in the New Testament.<br />
<br />
<b>Third</b>, I am glad that Dan wrote this book, instead of writing some of the other books that could have been written, such as “teasing out the meaning of” Eph 1:4-6. Speaking of which, I do believe Dan is working on a book on Proverbs, which I’m sure will be very interesting, if this work is any indication. I also marveled again and again how Dan worked in responses to many of the most common heresies in the contemporary church without specific sections; such as the historicity of Adam and Eve, the eternal nature of the God’s plan, that redemption is limited, and that we are utterly incapable of turning from our sin to God without Him first giving us new hearts by the work of the Holy Spirit. By the way, if you disagree with any of that, read the book, his answers are really solid, and there is a lot more than those I have mentioned.<br />
<br />
What follows is my commentary on each section of the book. There aren’t a lot of quotes, because honestly, most of the quotable parts were very dependent on previous sections, and so I would have ended up just quoting the whole thing anyways.<br />
<br />
<b>Introduction</b><br />
In the introduction, Dan lays out the major themes of the book, and what he believes is the cause of the current problems in the contemporary evangelical church. He begins with the proposition that the Gospel is world-tilting, i.e. it should (if communicated truthfully and believed correctly) invert our world-view from man-centered to God-centered, and asks why the ancient church changed peoples world-views and the contemporary church, for the most part, does not:<br />
<blockquote>
“Fast-forward to our day and glance around at evangelicanism. All the things that Group A (first-century church) lacked, Group B (modern evangelicanism) has: institutions, sway, numbers, technology, money, equipment, connections, glitz and glamour. Everything except world-tilting! Whatever you can say they are doing, you can’t say evangelicals are turning the world upside down. In fact, you could make a better case that the world has turned the church upside down.”
</blockquote>
In a series of points describing what the differences between the ancient and contemporary church practices are that lead to the current crop of problems, we find what I believe is the thesis of the book:<br />
<blockquote>
“Converts to Christ knew what they had been, what they had needed, and what God had done to rescue and transform them. They had a biblical worldview that explained the need for and nature of the Gospel. Modern evangelicals, too often, don’t.” (pg 17, Point 3) </blockquote>
In the rest of the book, Dan lays out:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>who we are </li>
<li>who God is</li>
<li>how we got where we are</li>
<li>what we need</li>
<li>what God has done</li>
<li>what difference it makes</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Explaining each point based on exposition of key bible texts, and refuting common errors and heresies along the way. The book is grouped into four major sections:
Part One deals with God, man’s current position before God, and how we came to be in this position. Part Two examines more deeply God’s nature, and how that informs His redemptive work on the cross. In Part Three “we learn how God’s “out there” work of salvation comes to have a revolutionary and transforming impact “in here,” in our own individual lives.” Part Four is focused on applying the Gospel message covered in the first three parts to confront teachings that are keeping Christians from the biblical Gospel model. Finally, Dan ties everything together to show how each Gospel truth should make each Christian a “world-tilter” and “barrier-buster”. In addition, at the end of each section, Dan also provides a helpful summary on how the particular truths expounded in that section are “world-tilting” and “barrier-busting”.<br />
<br />
<b>Part One</b><br />
The three chapters in Part One set the stage for everything that comes after. The chapter titles here are very telling: Ch1: Knowing God and Man, Ch2: What Happened in the Garden, Ch3: Like Father, Like Son. In the first chapter, some common wrong answers as to our self-image are discussed and refuted, such as those who think we are just good people and need a bit of a leg up; those who know they need God, but don’t think they are utterly incapable of choosing to follow God; and those who not only think they contribute something to the process of redemption, but also need to empty themselves to let God completely take over (note that these misconceptions come up again later). Dan proceeds to lay out the Biblical case: that our hearts are utterly deceitful, and therefore, if we would know God and our position before Him, we need to look to the Bible. He then does so in the next two chapters. Chapter two examines the first three chapters of Genesis, with particular attention on “the Fall”, with chapter three illustrating what many would admit is true, that nothing in our sinful nature has changed since Adam and Eve listened to the Serpent and willfully rebelled, and the only cure is a supernatural act. This sets the stage for God’s redemptive plan in Part Two. Note that Dan makes the point that if Adam was not a historical figure, nor a special, direct creation of God (guarding against naturalistic interpretations of Genesis).<br />
<br />
<b>Part Two</b><br />
Here we have the Gospel: God’s plan to redeem man from his fallen, sinful state; gloriously described for us. Dan begins to lay out the Gospel in a way that I had not really considered before, by first demonstrating that what happened in Genesis 3 was not a surprise to God, and how His various attributes (holiness, love and wisdom) are central to the Gospel. All three of these attributes are key, because they are areas of focus that I know many Christians are often very confused on. We often make light of each of these, believing that our sin is less offensive than it really is; that God should love us “just as we are”; and that He is just really, really smart. I think that Dan would agree that much of the problem in the contemporary church is that God’s love is emphasized too much over His holiness (if holiness is mentioned at all), and that is why it is first in the list. Chapter fives subtitle says it all: “God’s Holy, Loving Wisdom Confronts Our Hopeless, Desperate Need”. The Gospel here is outlined starting in Genesis, and working through history and the progressive revelation given in God’s Word. In this chapter, there is also particular emphasis on core truths: the eternal nature of the plan and election (God has always known who would be saved, and is in control of that situation), the need for a bloody, sinless sacrifice, that was prophesied from Genesis 3 and throughout the Bible. The final chapter in this section goes into more detail of what Christ actually did, or the execution of the rescue plan. With this done, we are of course left with the question: How do we get in?<br />
<br />
<b>Part Three</b><br />
Chapter seven looks at being “declared righteous”, and the fact that those who are so declared are also justified, and the marks of one who is truly justified: hearing the word (this is why we still need preaching and evangelism), repentance (truly turning away from our sin), and vital faith. There can be no repentance without hearing the word, repentance is more than just a change in our minds, and biblical faith “is focused on information, on truth -- on statements of truth. The notion that Christianity is primarily a feeling or an experience is terribly misleading. Christian faith is distinguished by its focus on certain specific affirmations of truth.” Chapter eight then examines the truth of regeneration, or being born again (from above), and how this results in a completely new nature if we are truly born again, one that is increasingly growing in Christ-likeness.<br />
<br />
<b>Part Four</b><br />
This is where things really start to come together. Two chapters here deal with some very serious heresies that impede Christian growth, I particularly like the names Dan gives those who fall into these teachings: Gutless Gracers, Crisis Upgraders, and Muzzy Mystics. For each one, the reasoning behind the teaching is given, and then soundly refuted. In this day and age I think these types of chapters are really important in a book on the Gospel, given that these particular types of heretical teachings are so abundant, and it is very likely that a new believer will encounter them. There are of course many other types of false teachings making the rounds, but I think most of them are dealt with rather well throughout the main body of the book.<br />
<br />
The next two chapters deal with “The Flesh” and “The Holy Spirit”, in each case what each of them are, and why they are important.
Finally, the last chapter gives nine ramifications of the Gospel (note: Dan nowhere suggests that this list is exhaustive, rather these are what he sees as particularly important ideas resulting from our study of the Gospel over the course of the book).
Just to give you an idea of what these are like, here is a quote from #5 (We Mustn’t Reason from “Is” to “Should”):<br />
<blockquote>
“Coming up with norms and standards of behavior by observing human society is like drawing up a motor vehicle handbook by filming a drunk driver, or concluding that the average weight is the ideal weight. What is, in this world, is not usually what should be.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Bible alone shows the truth of the matter. A pristine universe flowed from the vast mind of the perfect God by the power of His word. All was beauty and harmony, and God was at the center. Then sin entered, and chaos erupted on every plane except the divine. The world as we see it is marred by sin. Normal human behavior is broken human behavior, abnormal behavior, when judged by the standard of God’s original intent and stated norms.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
God’s unchanging, transcendent moral and spiritual absolutes shatter the world’s echo chamber of self-serving back-patting. This is a world-tilting truth.” (pg 289)</blockquote>
In the afterword, Dan provides us with the scripture passage that served as the reference for this entire study. I would almost say that the book is actually an exegesis of this one passage. Those who are very familiar with their Bibles may be able to discern what the passage is, but for everyone else, I’m not going to give it away. For that, you’ll just have to read the book.<br />
<br />
Thank you Dan for this book. I pray that it will find its way into many hands, stony hearts will be replaced with flesh, and eyes will be opened. Amen.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-41071195768037382062011-08-26T15:39:00.003-03:002011-08-26T15:47:46.016-03:00RStudioIf you do any kind of scientific programming, you probably use <a href="http://cran.r-project.org/">R</a> or <a href="http://mathworks.com">MatLab</a>. One disadvantage to using R previously was the lack of an integrated development environment, unless you were using Emacs. Well, if you code in R, you should really check out the <a href="http://rstudio.org">RStudio IDE</a>. It brings a lot of things that have been missing to R development, and has drastically sped up my code development workflow. It works on all three major operating systems (Windows, Mac, Linux), and is fairly customizable.
<br />
<br />The biggest thing I'm missing right now is the ability to launch multiple instances, as I often have bigger jobs that I want to have run in the background while I'm working on something else. But it wouldn't surprise me if they will introduce it, or if someone else will (it is an open source project, after all). Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-82825865879534186342011-08-11T22:04:00.001-03:002011-08-11T22:04:31.115-03:00Christians First?As Christians, our citizenship is in the Kingdom of God first, and our country second. Does acknowledging National Independence days in our houses of worship detract from the idea that we are Christians first, and anything else second? I am a Christian, Husband, Father, Scientist, and Canadian (in that order) living in the USA. Does anyone else think it is wrong to acknowledge Independence Day (USA) or Canada Day or any other national founding day in church services? Obviously we are residents and citizens of particular countries, and I don't think there is anything wrong with celebrating these days, but I wonder if making them a part of church services detracts from the notion that we are Christians first and citizens of a particular country second.
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-45481019648487579492011-08-11T21:44:00.003-03:002011-08-11T21:46:00.335-03:00Paper Pastors, Multi-Site Churches I have been thinking about a few issues lately that I think are actually rather interconnected: Pastors as celebrities (whether they want to or not), paper pastors (that isn't how John MacArthur would preach that section), and multi-site/-campus churches. From what I can tell, each of these are ultimately products of the same sin, the desire to elevate one person above others and worship them instead of God.
<br />
<br />If a pastor is a celebrity, then individuals in local churches are likely to place the words of the celebrity pastor over those of their local pastor. Don't get me wrong, listening to other preaching can be an extremely good thing, especially as a sounding board for the theology of your local pastor. My eyes were slowly opened to the apostasy of the elders in one of my old churches thanks to listening to men like John MacArthur and John Piper, and I am thankful for their ministries. But except for those types of instances, should we not be listening and meditating more on the words of our local pastor than those of men such as John MacArthur, John Piper, Al Mohler, Sinclair Ferguson, or Mark Dever? I don't think these men have sought out celebrity status in the Reformed camp, but it seems that they have become celebrities, and there are many who idolize them as celebrities.
<br />
<br />This feeds right in to the idea of paper or perhaps "virtual" pastors (paper being for reading books by other pastors, virtual for listening or watching sermons by other pastors). Due to the successful ministries of many pastors (see the list of celebrity pastors above), many are able to read books by and listen/watch sermons by other pastors, in addition to sitting under the preaching of their local pastor. Again, in many instances this can be a good thing, not everyone is preaching on the exact same thing, and it is often good to hear other points of view. But if you hold up the words of a "paper" or "virtual" pastor above those of your local pastor, I think there is a problem, especially because John MacArthur or Mark Dever or Joseph Pipa doesn't know you personally, but your local pastor does (or should).
<br />
<br />This leads into the idea of multi-site and multi-campus "churches" (such as Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill or John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist). I am using "church" because I don't really know if these would fit the Biblical model of a church with a local pastor expositing God's word to a local group of people week after week. That is what it sounds like Paul was encouraging Timothy to do, wasn't it? Obviously, there have been times in the history of the church where this model could not be followed due to a dearth of Godly teachers, but the norm has been to return to that model as soon as men are raised up to lead and teach. But now, I think due to the idea of pastors as celebrities and "paper" pastors, we are actually seeing churches willfully turn away from the biblical model, and instead embrace one where the person doing the teaching can't even hope to know all the names of those he is preaching to. I know that those who have implemented multi-campus churches see the weekly sermon given by a primary teaching pastor as somehow different from pastoring a local group of people, but I don't think you can have a truly effective impact on people if you do separate the two.
<br />
<br />Thoughts?
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-51374468319937574282011-07-08T08:10:00.004-03:002011-07-08T08:31:50.439-03:00Allergy Med Free for a Week!As many of my fellow Louisvillians know, living in the Ohio River Valley is not fun if you have allergies. In fact, some people discover that they have allergies only after moving here because the pollen count is so bad (like my wife). I used to suffer from seasonal allergies in Halifax, but only needed to take a Benadryl once in a while. This year, I moved up to taking an Allegra (or the generic equivalent) every day, and still having some problems with stuffiness.<br /><br />After suffering with the stuffiness even on meds, I decided to try rinsing out my nasal cavities (see Neti Pots for further information). But I didn't want to spend any amount of money on either a Neti Pot or the plastic squeeze bottles. Thinking about possible alternatives I remembered the little squeeze bulbs we use to remove mucus from my son's nasal cavities when he has a cold:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoWS2nqoJhEPdrUklCv20TcF0trmVgBV3mM3l63h0T9Ci6SKyA56eiCqV86ejE5f_2kGYr4n-CL9sy6waZs1KzFGoP0Z1bksOVA_EB5UhxUPV6ynndnKwH4jNHmTY4CtBE2Yrh/s1600/nose-sucker.bmp"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 255px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoWS2nqoJhEPdrUklCv20TcF0trmVgBV3mM3l63h0T9Ci6SKyA56eiCqV86ejE5f_2kGYr4n-CL9sy6waZs1KzFGoP0Z1bksOVA_EB5UhxUPV6ynndnKwH4jNHmTY4CtBE2Yrh/s320/nose-sucker.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5626939576232612210" /></a><br /><br />These things are relatively cheap, and combined with this recipe:<br /><br />3 tsp iodine free salt (pickling or kosher salt)<br />1 tsp baking soda<br />Mix together and store in a container<br />When needed, mix 1/2 tsp with 8oz water (pre-boiled or distilled)<br />(<a href="http://www.aaaai.org/patients/publicedmat/sinusitis/rinse.stm">source</a>)<br /><br />Every morning for the past 4 days (not quite a week, but still) I have been squirting this solution up into my sinuses to clean them out (two bulbs worth per side). I admit it is not really fun, but its not that bad either. I haven't taken an allergy pill since Sunday, and I haven't had any serious allergy symptoms, apart from some mild congestion and eye watering when I was walking from the bus yesterday afternoon. <br /><br />I really like the fact that I'm not taking more drugs (not that I take that many, but the fewer the better, really), and that it costs much less than the pills as well ($1.50 for 4lbs of pickling salt, and not much for baking soda, a lot cheaper than the $.5/day I was spending on allergy meds).<br /><br />Although the idea of sticking the bulb up your nose to rinse snot out might seem gross, if you suffer from regular allergies, then what have you got to lose?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-4321227222520800142011-04-21T14:59:00.006-03:002011-04-21T20:25:02.473-03:00Apple Storing Location dataUPDATE 21.04.11: Wired has some information on this: <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/">http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/apple-iphone-tracking/</a><br /><br />So I saw a link to this website on Apple keeping location data on iPhones the other day, and thought it was very interesting (<a href="http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/">http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/</a>). As I started thinking about it though, I remembered that the locations based on Wifi on the iPad also seemed to be pretty good, and I wondered if Apple was storing that information as well. So using the code here (<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3085153/how-to-parse-the-manifest-mbdb-file-in-an-ios-4-0-itunes-backup">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3085153/how-to-parse-the-manifest-mbdb-file-in-an-ios-4-0-itunes-backup</a>) to figure out what file was the database, and the other suggestions mentioned by the site, I did some digging into my iPad backup, and lo-behold there is a Table called "WifiLocation", with fields of "MAC", "Timestamp", "Latitude", "Longitude", etc. So I punched some of the Lat-Long coordinates into Google Maps, and although some seemed to be off (i.e. I don't remember being in that location) some of them were definitely right on, actually showing my apartment building.<br /><br />So not only are they storing the location using Cell towers (and maybe GPS, there is another table called "Location"), they are also storing it based on Wifi. This does not seem like a good thing. I mean location services are great, but why does my iPad need a database of past locations?<br /><br />I don't know how good many of the locations are, and what exactly is going on as there are multiple entries for any given timestamp. Unfortunately, I won't have time to try and work on this until after next Friday. Maybe someone else will have it all figured out by then.<br /><br />EDIT: For Windows users (everything above I did in Linux), I have also just found out about this <a href="http://code.google.com/p/iphonebackupbrowser/">http://code.google.com/p/iphonebackupbrowser/</a>, combining it with an <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sqlite-manager/">SQLite browser</a> should allow you to see what information is being stored on your iPhone or iPad. I haven't gotten it working yet, but have no reason to suspect it won't.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-35626494740019764072010-09-21T09:14:00.003-03:002010-09-21T09:18:57.797-03:00Theology in Country MusicAs I was driving to work this morning, I was listening to the local country station. They played two different songs that I think manage to convey completely opposite worldviews. The first was "Just Another Day in Paradise", by Phil Vassar. I really like this song, and I hope you see why from the lyrics:<br /><br /><blockquote>The kids screaming, phone ringing<br />Dog barking at the mailman bringing<br />That stack of bills - overdue<br />Good morning baby, how are you?<br />Got a half hour, quick shower<br />Take a drink of milk but the milk's gone sour<br />My funny face makes you laugh<br />Twist the top on and I put it back<br />There goes the washing machine<br />Baby, don't kick it. <br />I promise I'll fix it<br />Long about a million other things<br /><br />Well, it's ok. It's so nice<br />It's just another day in paradise<br />Well, there's no place that<br />I'd rather be<br />Well, it's two hearts<br />And one dream<br />I wouldn't trade it for anything<br />And I ask the Lord every night<br />For just another day in paradise<br /><br />Friday, you're late<br />Guess we'll never make our dinner date<br />At the restaurant you start to cry<br />Baby, we'll just improvise<br />Well, plan B looks like<br />Dominoes' pizza in the candle light<br />Then we'll tippy toe to our room<br />Make a little love that's overdue<br />But somebody had a bad dream<br />Mama and daddy<br />Can me and my teddy<br />Come in to sleep in between?<br /><br />Yeah it's ok. It's so nice.<br />It's just another day in paradise.<br />Well, there's no place that<br />I'd rather be<br />Well, it's two hearts<br />And one dream<br />I wouldn't trade it for anything<br />And I ask the Lord every night<br />For just another day in paradise<br /><br />Well, it's ok. It's so nice.<br />It's just another day in paradise.<br />Well, there's no place that<br />I'd rather be<br />Two hearts<br />And one dream<br />I wouldn't trade it for anything<br />And I ask the Lord every night<br />For just another day in paradise<br /><br />For just another day in paradise<br />Well, it's the kids screaming. The phone ringing<br />Just another day<br />Well, it's Friday. You're late<br />Oh yeah, it's just another day in paradise</blockquote><br /><br />They then proceeded to play Sugarland's "Something More". The outlook from this song couldn't be more opposite of "Just Another Day in Paradise":<br /><br /><blockquote>Monday, hard to wake up<br />Fill my coffee cup, I'm out the door<br />Yeah, the freeway's standing still today<br />It's gonna make me late, and thats for sure<br />I'm running out of gas and out of time<br />Never gonna make it there by nine<br /><br />Chorus:<br />There's gotta be something more<br />Gotta be more than this<br />I need a little less hard time<br />I need a little more bliss<br />I'm gonna take my chances<br />Taking any chance I might<br />Find what I'm looking for<br />There's gotta be something more<br /><br />Five years and there's no doubt<br />That I'm burnt out, I've had enough<br />So now boss man, here's my two weeks<br />I'll make it short and sweet, so listen up<br />I could work my life away, but why?<br />I got things to do before die<br /><br />Repeat Chorus<br /><br />Some believe in destiny, and some believe in fate<br />I believe that happiness is something we create<br />You best belive that I'm not gonna wait<br />'Cause there's gotta be something more<br /><br />I get home 7:30 the house is dirty, but it can wait<br />Yeah, 'cause right now I need some downtime<br />To drink some red wine and celebrate<br />Hey, Armageddon could be knocking at my door <br />But I ain't gonna answer thats for sure.<br />There's gotta be something more! <br /><br />There's gotta be something!<br /><br />Repeat chorus<br /><br />Got to be, <br />Got to be,<br />Got to be something more!</blockquote><br /><br />All of this just made me pause and think about my own life this morning, and whether I was truly thankful for what God has given me, or whether I thought I deserved more from God.<br /><br />I hope it makes you think too.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-63596079974219991192010-07-07T12:29:00.003-03:002010-07-07T12:39:22.299-03:00Loving the ChurchFunny, my reading and listening intersected today in a neat way. I have been listening to John Shearouse preach on Psalm 102, <a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/psalm-102-loving-the-dust/id298044299?i=84603663">Loving the Dust</a>, and then I was reading Joshua Harris's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dug-Down-Deep-Unearthing-Believe/dp/1601421516">Dug Down Deep</a> on how Christians should relate to the Church, and was struck by this particular paragraph:<br /><br /><blockquote>But what if we saw that the church is more than a human program, more than what we disparagingly refer to as organized religion? What if we saw that it originated in the heart and mind of God himself and that his plan began before the dawn of human history and stretches into eternity? What if we learned that the church was so precious to Jesus that he was willing to shed his own blood to obtain it? What if the church is the means by which God has chosen to accomplish his purpose for us and for the world? And what if it is irreplaceable? <br />If we could see this, then we'd realize that rejecting the church is rejecting God himself.</blockquote><br /><br />Two different things to look at, but both very much about how Christians are to love the church.<br /><br />I know I have not always loved the Church as I should have. Have you?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-34083733384270611542010-06-12T23:35:00.005-03:002010-06-12T23:53:07.752-03:00Thoughts on Evolution Part 3: Natural SelectionHaving examined the literalness of the <a href="http://rflight.blogspot.com/2010/06/thoughts-on-evolution-part-1-literal.html">creation account</a> and the <a href="http://rflight.blogspot.com/2010/06/thoughts-on-evolution-part-2-age-of.html">age of the earth</a>, let us now turn to the issue of the evolution of life via natural selection. Keep in mind, that due to how we should regard the creation account and the age of the earth, there is no way a Bible believing Christian should regard this as remotely possible. However, because our secular culture and many Christians take the creation of life by evolution and natural selection as a given, we will examine some of the problems with the theory here.<br /><br />First, let us define two terms, natural selection and evolution. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Natural selection</span> can be described as <blockquote>A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations</blockquote> (<a href="http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection">http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Natural_selection</a>). <span style="font-weight:bold;">Evolution</span> is a little trickier, because there are actually two definitions that are used, and although they imply two completely different things, many will use them interchangeably. The first is the scientific literature definition: <blockquote>any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next</blockquote> The second is the one generally held by the general public: <blockquote>The process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years.</blockquote> The first is frequently observed occurring in natural and laboratory settings via natural selection or another method. The second has yet to be observed.<br /><br />Many people, Richard Dawkins included, want to believe that the same natural selection that results in antibiotic resistant bacteria, has also allowed very similar creatures to those bacteria to accumulate enough information to eventually become creatures like you and me, otherwise known as "goo to you" evolution. <br /><br />What are the problems with this view? The first and foremost is that natural selection works at the level of information. The DNA sequence in every cell is not just a random sequence, but rather a highly specific set of instructions on how to make everything a cell needs to live, including more copies of itself. When a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it does so either through mutation of the target, or by acquiring a beneficial protein from another type of bacterium. As a mutation almost always results in a loss of function, it will only remain if the selective pressure of the antibiotic continues to be applied. This is also true of any acquired protein as well, as these are often encoded in packets of DNA that are not integrated into the bacterial genome (or original set of instructions), but are only kept and transmitted to progeny as long as the selective pressure is applied.<br /><br />In addition, as far as I am aware, no one has answered the problem of increasing information required for evolution. In fact, most known mechanisms of evolution actually decrease the information content in the genome. Imagine a book, wherein letters, words or entire paragraphs may be deleted, copied, or transposed. Now, is there more or less information in the book before or after the modifications? Now imagine that this book contains the instructions for building an extremely complex machine, in which every piece has to be built with painstaking attention to detail. <br /><br />The true complexity involved is even greater, in that the book; our genome, contains the instructions for building a new printing press, and the energy generator to build and run the printing press, and even make the paper and ink that will be used in printing a new copy of the original book. The DNA in our cells is even more complex than this, and it turns out that additional information is encoded at levels above the DNA sequence in chemical modifications on some DNA pieces, and the packing of the DNA. This is much like the way language works, in that information is encoded at multiple levels, namely letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. Doesn't all of this sound like an extremely well designed language?<br /><br />All of this ignores the obvious problem of getting the first bit of DNA and a cell that could replicate the DNA together in a way that they can actually do what our cells currently do. These, and many other reasons are why I do not accept the current scientific consensus that life arose through naturalistic processes and became more complex via evolution. I believe that 6000 years ago, God created the universe, the earth, and all life on it in a single act of creation over 6 literal days. Man sinned and rejected God's rule, and God then sent His son Jesus Christ to be a propitiation for sin. Those who accept Jesus as their Lord and savior will live for eternity in Heaven, and those who do not will suffer for eternity in Hell. This is the message given to us by God himself in the Bible.<br /><br />For more resources and information, please see <a href="http://creation.com">creation.com</a>. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-12986554365329954382010-06-12T23:26:00.002-03:002010-06-12T23:30:23.032-03:00Thoughts on Evolution Part 2: Age of the EarthIn the <a href="http://rflight.blogspot.com/2010/06/thoughts-on-evolution-part-1-literal.html">first part</a>, we came to the conclusion that the creation account in Genesis should be taken literally. This of course brings up the age of the earth. Last time I looked, almost any way you add them up, all of the genealogies in the Bible add up to approximately 6000 years. Therefore, as a Bible believing Christian, I have to believe that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. <br /><br />Now, some might rightly wonder, what about all of the scientific studies that claim the oldest rocks on the earth are on the order of 4.5 billion years old (byo). First, almost all of the dating methods start with the assumption that the earth is ancient, and that the various processes producing the elements of interest have never changed. There is no way to truly validate this assumption, nor to verify what the starting conditions in the rocks of interest actually are. <br /><br />Second, many of the rock dating methods do not agree with each other, and the magnitude of the disagreement can be huge. In addition, there are many other pieces of evidence that do not appear to agree with the earth being as old as claimed (see <a href="http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa">here for some</a>). One that I find particularly interesting is that there are certain rocks that contain helium gas. The helium in these rocks is leaking out at a known rate, and there is a theoretical maximum amount they could hold. However, if the rocks from which this helium is escaping were really as old as claimed, then there should be absolutely no helium left in them! (see <a href="http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics">here</a>).<br /><br />Some might point to the Grand Canyon as evidence for an old earth. The proposition is that the many layers of rock were laid down slowly over millennia, and that subsequently the river carved out the canyon over many more. The eruption of <a href="http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=261">Mount St. Helens</a> has demonstrated on a smaller scale that the processes both of sedimentary layer deposition and erosion can occur extremely quickly, especially during various catastrophes. What bigger geologic catastrophe do we have recorded for us by the very words of God but that of a worldwide flood?<br /><br />So, even though we must as Christians consider the Bible as a witness to time, there are actually many other attestations to it's veracity in scientific fields, if one does not start with the presupposition that the earth is much older than is claimed by the Bible.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-1438196050184968852010-06-12T22:54:00.002-03:002010-06-12T23:01:53.263-03:00Thoughts on Evolution Part 1: Literal GenesisAs someone who spends a lot of time examining biological problems and has a PhD in chemistry, many people tend to be surprised when I profess unbelief in evolution. This position is not one that I have held for very long, and in fact for most of my life I was an ardent evolutionist and atheist. Even after becoming a Christian, I still believed that there was room in the Genesis account for the long ages required for evolution to work, and that God could work through evolutionary processes if he so wished.<br /><br />However, the first seeds of doubt were actually planted during the latter part of my undergraduate and my masters when I spent a good portion of my days staring at the structure of a protein. Which protein is not important for our discussion (those who are curious can look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetylcholinesterase">acetylcholinesterase</a>), but what is important is that this protein catalyzes a reaction that requires the precise arrangement of amino acids in the protein with the chemicals undergoing the reaction. Only three amino acids are actually responsible for carrying out the reaction, but they are part of a long chain of 500 amino acids that fold around them and position them perfectly to carry out the reaction.<br /><br />This type of precise arrangement is found in many different biological systems, even at the relatively simple level of viruses and bacteria, both of which are much more complicated than many give them credit for. As I encountered this and other examples of apparent design, I began to question my long held position of atheism. However, even after I accepted Christ as my Lord and savior, I still believed that it was possible that God had only started life, that the creation account in Genesis was not to be taken literally, and therefore something akin to directed evolution occurred under the direction of God.<br /><br />What I didn't realize was that this view actually forced me to conclude that parts of scripture are not to be interpreted in context. All of the alternative methods of interpreting Genesis cause one to interpret it as something other than literal history. However, Jesus and all the OT and NT writers treat Genesis as literal history. If there were not a literal "first Adam" by whose fall sin entered the world, then what need is there for a "last Adam" to redeem us from sin?<br /><br />A literal reading also precludes a process such as evolution via natural selection being responsible for life due to the requirement of death. How could God declare that creation was "very good" if it was the result of millions of years of death? Especially when death did not enter the world until the first sin of Adam and Eve? If one does not treat the creation account as literal, at what point does Genesis then become literal history, as it must for redemption to make any sense. And who is the arbiter in making that decision? Can any other parts of the Bible that we don't particularly like also be turned into nonsense? Essentially one must pit man over and against God's word.<br /><br />At this point, many reading this are likely thinking, what about all of the various scientific evidences for an old earth and for evolution? We will examine these in the next two parts.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-70582448832405265302010-05-16T21:32:00.001-03:002010-05-16T21:35:43.607-03:00Thoughts on my first mega-chuch experience<b>For those who know</b>, Sarah and I recently moved to Louisville, KY. Before we moved here, we found out that the sixth largest church in the US, <a href="http://www.southeastchristian.org/">Southeast Christian Church</a>, is here. Although we have found a new <a href="http://www.midlaneparkarp.org/">church home</a>, I decided that I wanted to experience at least one service at Southeast, and see how one does a church service with 6000 people. So I attended the Saturday evening worship service.<br /><br />I'm going to divide this into two parts. The first will examine the logistical aspects of being in a worship service with 6000 other people, and the second will examine the content of the worship service itself.<br /><br /><b>So first</b>, how do you have a church with 6000 people in attendance? Well, you have a really, really big building. But first, you have to have a place to put all of their cars (really bad public transit in Louisville), so there is a really big parking lot. And to get those cars into the parking lot, there were actually people outside directing traffic into the driveway, and they looked like police officers (I saw one badge that said Louisville correctional services). I should mention at this point that there were a lot of staff, from greeters to people handing out the elements of the Lord's supper, which isn't that surprising.<br /><br />Upon entering the church itself, I found a very large information center, and a coffee shop. Although I had read the many jokes about various mega-churches and coffee shops, I was still surprised to see a coffee shop in a church building. I guess people need their jolt of caffiene to be able to worship God, and where better to get it than the church itself? There was also a lot of doors and hallways leading every which way.<br /><br />Then there was the sanctuary. Outside, there was a main entrance, and stairs going up to the two upper levels, although I found out that there are actually 5 levels. Inside, it was just huge. I think many conference centers are smaller than the sanctuary here. And the seats, they just go on and on. I counted at least 4 video cameras focused on the stage (there may have been more I didn't see), and then there were a bunch of large video screens, and at least four banks of speakers feeding audio out. It was impressive, and massive. On stage there was a setup for a full band, and off to one side a small pool sized baptism tank.<br /><br />During the service, they had the Lord's supper, with what looked like an army of people going around to hand out the bread and the juice. There was also the same army (from what I could tell) doing the collection of the offerring.<br /><br /><b>What about the service itself?</b> Listening to the worship music felt like being at a concert, and people actually applauded after each song. The music was so loud I often couldn't hear myself or others around me singing along. And the words on the screen were superimposed over video of the worship team. The songs weren't any worse than many hymns theologically, but they were loud. There was a video spot where one person talked about a recent story in the NYPost involving a homeless man saving a woman, being stabbed to death, and then no one helping the homeless man while he dies. This was then tied to Jesus dying for the ungodly.<br /><br />The sermon was on "Goodness and Kindness" as fruits of the spirit. The text was 2 Sam 9:1-11, where David is looking to make good on his promise to Jonathan to protect Jonathan's family, and David's treatment of Mephibosheth. The whole sermon built up to three points regarding kindness: (1) We need to show kindness to family and friends; (2) We should show kindness to someone who can't return the favor; and (3) we should show kindness when it may not be deserved. Now, I will admit, these are things we should do, and I would agree that Christians need to be reminded of these types of things. But in building up to this, I felt there was a lack of emphasis on Christ showing us this kindness himself, and therefore this should be our response as those who have been saved. This may have been due to the shortness of the sermon itself (I forgot my cell phone, but I would judge it was ~30 min), but I also think the time spent telling everyone about the ways that people in the church have/will show(n) kindness to others could have been better spent on examining David as a type of Christ, but don't take my <a href="http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/2-samuel/9.html">word for it</a>. Don't get me wrong, there was some stuff about Christ's and God's kindness to us, but given the imagery in 2 Samuel 9, this could have been brought out a lot more. Then again, I don't write sermons. For those who want to verify what I am saying, the date I attended was May 15, so go to the church website and see if the sermon archive has it.<br /><br />So would I go there again? No. Would I recommend the place? Not with just one visit, but not likely ever, either. Even if you don't agree with the Presbyterian view on covenants, I'm sure there must be some more solid churches in Louisville with better expository preaching. But man there was a lot of people, if that's what you think is the best indicator of a church.<br /><br /><b>Follow Up:<br /></b>I was speaking with someone after our church service today about the services at Southeast, and he made a really good point that in a seeker sensitive type church you are not using the service to necessarily feed the sheep, but rather to bring the goats in from the outside and make them comfortable, and get them into programs where they can get more learning. But in my mind this goes completely against what the purpose of church should be, which is worship of God and feeding the sheep so that they can better understand their relationship to the shepherd. If any goats do come in, they should not be comfortable, because they do not yet know the shepherd, and don't even know that they need a shepherd. If they come in, they need to know that they are seperated from the flock, and that the only way to become a part of it is through repentance and knowing the shepherd.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-52101850177725755382010-03-23T21:59:00.002-03:002010-03-23T22:06:32.403-03:00Living it up in Louisville!So a quick update. In December 2009, I applied for a Post-Doc position at the University of Louisville for microarray bioinformatics. I had a phone interview, and the next week I was on a plane for Louisville. Two days after that interview, they told me they were going to offer me the position. A month of waiting, and I had a job offer, and we were getting our stuff together to come to the US.<div><br /></div><div>We've been in our new apartment 2 weeks, in Louisville for 1 month, and I've been working at my new job for 3 weeks. It has been a bit of a whirlwind, and honestly we are still getting our bearings. It is a new experience for both of us, especially as Sarah adjusts to being a homemaker, and I adjust to bringing home all the bacon. This will be the situation for a while between our Visa situation and a baby on the way July 8th. </div><div><br /></div><div>God has been good. We had enough money to get ourselves set up (and a small allowance for moving, and wonderful family and friends to store our extra stuff), we have an apartment, food in our fridge, and are getting to know a wonderful church family.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-35943064617205055232009-08-11T08:13:00.003-03:002009-08-11T08:26:18.845-03:00Deadly Storms?So I was watching <a href="http://www.theweathernetwork.com/">The WeatherNetwork</a> this morning before I head off to work, as I do most mornings to get an idea of how I should dress for the day and see what to expect for weather for the next few days. Following the local forecast, the news feature started. Now for those who don't know, southern Ontario had some very severe thunderstorms on the weekend. I had seen some coverage of those storms on The WeatherNetwork, and yesterday they reported that one, that is one person, a woman from Sarnia, had died from the storms. Understand, I think that it is tragic that anyone died from the storms.<br /><br />However, imagine my surprise this morning to hear of the "Deadly Storms" in southern Ontario on the weekend. Wow! There must have been many more people killed during the storms than I thought! It should be all over the major newspapers and news websites in Canada! Nope. The only reported death I can find is still one, mentioned as another item in both these stories:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/08/10/hydro-one.html">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/08/10/hydro-one.html</a><br /><a href="http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090810/thunderstorm_Torono_090810/20090810?hub=Toronto">http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090810/thunderstorm_Torono_090810/20090810?hub=Toronto</a><br /><br />Yes, The WeatherNetwork is correct, the storm was deadly in that someone died. And again, I'm not trying to make light of the fact that someone died, however, "deadly storm" implies that there were many more deaths than one, and that from a lightning strike. I actually think it is amazing that with all of the toppled trees, downed power lines, and the amount of lightning strikes that only one person died.<br /><br />I wonder how many people are dying from the typhoons and related weather in Asia? How many unborn children die every minute from abortions? Lets have a little bit of perspective.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-72568428705138126822009-08-10T19:43:00.004-03:002009-08-10T19:54:46.028-03:00Free Speech Conference<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ecpcentre.com/conference.php?id=7"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 650px; height: 260px;" src="http://noapologies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/ecp_ignite09_noapp-webbanner.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />As you can see from the above banner, there is going to be a conference on Free Speech and Human Rights in Canada in Halifax, September 25 and 26, 2009. If the current state of affairs regarding these interests you, then I encourage you to come out.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-79476546275903251652009-08-10T19:16:00.006-03:002009-08-10T19:39:17.229-03:00GI Joe ReviewFor anyone who grew up reading the comic, watching the cartoon, or playing in their backyard with the action figures and vehicles, you, like me, probably looked forward to the this past Friday's opening the live-action GI Joe movie with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. Excitement to see if Snake Eyes would be as cool on the big screen as he was in the cartoon/comic (he is), and trepidation that movie executives had ruined your childhood fantasies.<br /><br />This brings us to something you're probably wondering about if you have seen the <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/gijoeriseofcobra/">trailers</a>: the accelerator suits. If you think the whole idea is nuts and simply a campy gimmick, remember that <a href="http://www.darpa.mil/">DARPA</a> has been researching the idea of hydraulically assisted exoskeletons for a <a href="http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-04/building-real-iron-man">long time</a>. GI Joe of course has access to all the latest and greatest military tech, so it makes sense that the suits were one piece of tech that featured in the movie. All that being said, they do feel a little gimmicky, but overall it works.<br /><br />All that being said, you might be wondering why I am posting a movie review here. I actually have a couple of reasons. 1 - I grew up watching and reading about GI Joe, I was interested when I saw the first trailer; 2 - There is a distinct lack of movies today where good and evil are not clearly defined, and GI Joe stood out to me for that reason. 3 - I also believe that many of the critics, finally seeing the movie, will cut it up for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />For those who don't know, here is a basic plot synopsis. Evil genius weapons developer who wants to rule the world develops a nanobot weapon that eats metal, and sells it to NATO.<br /><br />To keep from spoiling the movie for anyone who plans to see the movie, I'll just stick to generalities, and how I felt as a reformed Christian watching the movie. In contrast to many movies nowadays, evil is evil and good is good (for the most part). The bad guy wants to unite people under a one-world government after scaring them by a series of terrorist attacks. He likes to think it is for their own good, but really it seems that for him it is all about power. Of course he is a big powerful businessman, and he is going to achieve his ends using science. This is probably one of my biggest complaints, the scientist is always evil, but the good guys use plenty of their own tech (like the aformentioned accelorator suits).<br /><br />The female characters are just as strong as the male characters in that they participate in combat and lead some parts of the operations, but that is pretty common among movies nowadays (have to be "equal" in everything, see even the changes made to the Narnia movie compared to the book regarding <a href="http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/C-S-Lewis-Prince-Caspian-and-Women-in-Combat-Part-1">Susan in combat</a>). There was no nudity or sex in the movie, but an adulterous relationship was explicitly evident. There was also very little swearing, if any, however there was some blood, obviously death (it is soldiers fighting after all), along with scenes involving characters recieving a lot of pain.<br /><br />I do have a couple of criticisms. One is that there did appear to be a glorification of fighting by the soldiers themselves instead of looking at it as a necessary evil to combat those who were out to hurt others, and this seemed to translate into a lack of concern for those soldiers who were hurt unless they were a primary character. The other is that GI Joe, instead of only being an American unit (as was explicit in the cartoon and comics) is multinational in nature, and is tasked with stopping an individual who wants to put all countries under a one-world government. This seemed kind of silly to me, but it works. Finally, what is up with the full outer cast of Snake Eyes face (lips included).<br /><br />However, I do think they did a good job of translating the various characters from comic/cartoon to big screen, although I am sure they took a lot of liberties with the origins of many of the characters. If you like action flicks, don't mind a bit of overdone CGI, then I would definitely recommend this movie. I'm sure a lot of hardcore fanboys will see many things differently, and the critics even more so, but that is the way I saw it. I'm looking forward to the next movie coming out that was a favorite cartoon when I was younger, <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/summit/astroboy/">AstroBoy</a>!<br /><br />PS - So I guess I missed the scatalogical references, according to <a href="http://www.kids-in-mind.com/g/gijoetheriseofcobra.htm">this</a>. For more information about whether you want to see GI Joe or take your kids, check out this site: <a href="http://www.kids-in-mind.com/g/gijoetheriseofcobra.htm">http://www.kids-in-mind.com/g/gijoetheriseofcobra.htm</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-65704583232535067832009-04-08T14:07:00.003-03:002009-04-08T14:10:58.444-03:00Where am I?So I was doing good for a little while back, actually making a post about once a week or so. Unfortunately, it is crunch time as far as my thesis goes. I have a hard deadline to make, and therefore, even though I find time to read other stuff on the 'net, finding time to write about it or my own stuff takes up just too much time. So, don't expect to see any new stuff from me probably until after my thesis defense is done, unless you are one of my friends on Facebook, in which case I share a lot of the articles I end up reading.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and if you know of anyone with Bioinformatics type jobs in Halifax, or even in Canada, can you let me know?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-20691841182500391982009-02-24T10:37:00.003-04:002009-02-24T10:45:07.205-04:00Win an ESV Calfskin Bible!For anyone who is looking for a new ESV Calfskin study Bible, maybe you should check out <a href="http://www.boomerinthepew.com/2009/02/win-a-calfskin-version-of-the-esv-study-bible.html">this contest</a>? This post also counts as my entry, so it's not too hard.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.boomerinthepew.com/2009/02/win-a-calfskin-version-of-the-esv-study-bible.html">http://www.boomerinthepew.com/2009/02/win-a-calfskin-version-of-the-esv-study-bible.html</a><br /><br />This is the first I have heard of '<a href="http://www.boomerinthepew.com/">Boomer in the Pew</a>', but it looks like another (of so, so many) blogs to keep an eye on.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-91363932195010229362009-01-31T08:08:00.004-04:002009-01-31T08:21:59.334-04:00How is this different?I'm sure almost everyone reading this will by now have heard that Penny Boudreau has plead guilty to killing her 12 year old daughter Karissa (<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090130.wnskilling0130/BNStory/National/home">Globe & Mail story here</a>). The information that has been given is that Penny killed her daughter in response to her boyfriends ultimatum that Penny must choose either him or her daughter. No one knows whether he meant for Penny to kill her daughter, but obviously Penny thought that it was the easiest way to choose her boyfriend. So Karissa's life was less important than Penny's continued relationship with her boyfriend.<br /><br />My question is this: how is this any different than a woman having an abortion because 'she's not at the right time in her life' (for whatever reason) to have a child?<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me. I am not condoning what Penny Boudreau did (in fact I think it is sickening), but considering the morals of this time concerning the lives of our children, I think Penny was applying those morals consistently. Her daughter was an inconvenience in her relationship with her boyfriend, so she <span style="font-weight: bold;">killed her</span>. A baby will be an inconvenience in the womans life, so she <span style="font-weight: bold;">kills</span> it before it can be born.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">How are these two situations any different? </span><br /><br />Obviously, one is illegal and one is not. But why? One lived longer, and so is more deserving to have a life? One made it out of the womb? Considering all that makes us human is encoded at conception, that is a cop-out. Human life is human life, whether it is 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months in the womb, or 12 years outside of it.<br /><br />I'm sure people will disagree with me on this, but I challenge you to then rationally explain why these two situations are any different outside of the law.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20638909.post-62998203467068942782009-01-26T11:54:00.001-04:002009-01-26T12:25:57.060-04:00Praying for Ministers to preach the wordSo yesterday I listened to my pastor expound on Ephesians 6:19-20 (listen <a href="http://www.arpnovascotia.com/covenant/sermons/20090125AM%20Ep%206%2010-20%20-%20Pray%20for%20Ministers%20in%20the%20Battle.mp3">here</a>, or read it <a href="http://www.arpnovascotia.com/covenant/sermons/Text/20090125AM%20Ep%206%2010-20%20-%20Pray%20for%20Ministers%20in%20the%20Battle.pdf">here</a>) about praying for Ministers of the Gospel. Much of the message was about the fact that ministers are called to preach and expound the word of God to the people. And then today, I read from <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/01/carpe-diem-preacherdude.html">Dan Phillips (at Pyromaniacs)</a> about ministers getting up into the pulpit and not doing that. I would say that instead of complaining when pastors/ministers do not preach the word as they are called to do, we should do as Paul asks and be praying for them. How many of us instead of praying that our pastors would preach the word, criticize them behind their back when they don't? I was very convicted by Pauls words in Ephesians, and I hope you are too. We should all be in regular prayer for our pastors and pastors in every church, that they would preach and expound the word of God, and that those who are preaching the Gospel would continue.<br /><br /><a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/01/carpe-diem-preacherdude.html">Pyromaniacs: <span style="font-style: italic;">Carpe diem</span>, preacherdude</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11732353840939638830noreply@blogger.com0