
All about Therese, Steve, Daniel and Angelique, Sam and Jess, Madeline and Daniel, Brigette and Adriano, Tom, Amelia and Ryan, Christopher and Joseph. Come on in and share a cup of coffee and see what is happening in our lives.
Friday, August 05, 2011
Quick 7.

Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Monday, August 01, 2011
Smart Martha Monday.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Oops.
Last night I was standing in the bathroom filling the bath for Joseph. I was also looking at my game of words with friends with Daniel. I got a bit distracted and filled the bath up really high. When I turned the taps off, he objected a bit. He quite liked the water running in and really enjoyed his deep deep bath.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Laundry.
Our laundry space is much smaller than this one but I like the set up of the washing machine, trough and cupboards. We could do it along the wall that the bath is in at the moment. I think I want some softer colours for the paint but love the wood colour for the cupboards. Steve was a plumber before he was a teacher so he knows how to do all the plumbing and put the hose from the washing machine to the trough.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Tasty Tuesday: Pumpkin soup.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Smart Martha Monday
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Weekend wrap up
Saturday, July 23, 2011
In the book “Can Man Live Without God?” Ravi Zacharis writes:
If I am merely the product of matter and at the mercy of material determinism,why should I subject myself to anyone else’s moral convictions? If, on the otherhand, I am fashioned by God for his purpose, then I need to know him and know that purpose for which I have been made, for out of that purpose is born my sense of right and wrong. There are two worlds represented by these options.
The atheist lives in tension. He says one thing and knows in his heart of hearts that another is true. The atheist ethics professor teaches ethical relativism, mocks Christianity with its moral absolutes, and explains to his class that right and wrong, as objective moral standards, do not exist. But then he absolutely demands that you not cheat on his test on ethical relativism. If you do cheat, he immediately forgets that he’s an atheist and begins speaking like a Christian, insisting that cheating is wrong and that you should know that.
We cannot teach people that they are nothing but material things that have evolved out of the slime and then try to also teach them that there is moral law they need to abide by. They are too smart to not see the implications of the atheism they’re taught. So they reason this world is a struggle for existence, and if cheating on a few tests will help me to get ahead and get the good job and earn the good money, then why not?
There is no foundation for morality apart from God. If naturalists really begin to live in a manner consistent with their worldview, their moral lives would implode.
Taken from “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Friday, July 22, 2011
7 quick takes: The holiday edition.

Thursday, July 21, 2011
Small Successes and Thankful Thursday.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Wordless Wednesday: Gladstone Square
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Pay It forward.

Meet Sue from Not enough Butter.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Smart Martha Monday
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Some atheists argue that we don’t need to believe in God in order to have morality. We can determine what is right and wrong by using reason alone.
Atheist Kai Nielsen argues that it doesn’t take God’s existence for us to figure out what is just and fair in a given situation. Do we really need God in order to know that we ought to keep our promises, or tell the truth, or pay our debts, or allow an elderly woman to take our seat on the bus? If we want to be treated with respect and dignity, isn’t it only reasonable that we should treat others with respect and dignity? It doesn’t take the existence of God for us to figure out how we ought to conduct ourselves morally.
Both Kai Nielsen and Immanuel Kant are right when they suggest that we can come to know what is right and what is wrong by the use of reason alone. After all, the moral law exists and is reasonable and God has written his moral law on our hearts and given us reason so that we might understand the world he has created. But if there is no God, no moral law, and if nothing exists but material substances as atheists like Nielsen suggest, why should a notion like ‘reason’ bond us to any particular type of conduct? If there is no moral truth to be discovered and if I have to simply choose the moral point of view because that type of life is what I find worthwhile for myself, then the decision is arbitrary, rationally speaking. The moral difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is roughly the same as the difference between whether I want to be a trumpet player of a baseball player.
Because the naturalist worldview cannot support the real existence of right and wrong, any standard of morality the atheist comes up with is going to be arbitrary. It will simply be his idea of a good way to have some resemblance of morality in an immoral, impersonal, meaningless universe. Often it will also be inconsistent and even contradictory to the naturalist worldview. To see this, all one has to do is ask the question: How exactly does this ethical standard arise naturally from an infinite sea of ever changing material substances?
Taken from "The Godless Delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Lesson learnt.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Friday movie night.
Brigette, Amelia and I are having a girls night and watching Life as we know it and eating barnacle bills for tea.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Small Successes and Thankful Thursday.

Thanks so much to Sherry from Chocolate for your brain for hosting Small Success each week.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Tasty Tuesday: Self saucing Chocolate pudding.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Smart Martha Monday
Sunday, July 10, 2011
weekend wrap up.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Atheists will argue that there does not need to be a God given moral law, but that we can choose to do anything so long as we are not hurting someone.
For example, as long as sexual activity is between consenting adults, you should be free to do whatever you like, with whomever you like, in whatever combinations you like, and in whatever circumstances you like in or out of marriage as long as no one is hurt by it. ‘Hurt’ is usually narrowly defined in terms of sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancy.
If human beings are nothing but highly evolved animals, as atheists claim, then it could be argued that no harm is done when people behave like animals. A hedonistic lifestyle may adequately provide for what you want out of life. Do whatever your desires and appetites and addictions and fetishes compel you to do.
If God exists, and he designed human sexuality to be expressed and find its meaning and fulfillment in the loving commitment of marriage, then unbridled sexual activity would be a destructive activity that attacks human dignity and eventually inflicts profound and lasting emotional, spiritual and physical wounds.
Everyone is hurt by the ‘do no harm’ ethic. Those involved in sexual promiscuity, or in other immoral activities that might be considered entirely private, are hurt because God made them for something so much higher and better. They degrade themselves when they fail to pursue their higher calling. Those who follow their example are hurt, especially the children who assume that this must be a good way to live. Parents who would never have wanted this for their sons or daughters are hurt. Even society itself is hurt as its moral tenor is diminished by such behavior even though its proponents claim they’re not hurting anyone else.
A problem for the naturalist who subscribes to the ‘do no harm’ ethical standard is that it is actually inconsistent with the naturalist worldview. Do naturalists see the ‘do no harm’ standard existing in nature? Is this something the natural world teaches us? Didn’t Darwin claim that, in nature, the strong prey upon the weak and only the fittest survive? Isn’t his how things should be in this strictly material world?
If human beings are merely highly evolved animals, why is it universally understood to be wrong for one human being to steal from, injure, or murder another human being? What is the rational basis to insert the notion of ‘right and wrong’ into an atheist worldview?
The consistent atheist is forced to admit that the ‘do no harm’ standard contradicts the naturalist worldview that embraces Darwin’s evolutionary principle of ‘survival of the fittest’. Natural selection is guaranteed not be being nice to competitors but by overpowering weaker competitors.
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Friday, July 08, 2011
7 quick takes: The holiday edition.

Thursday, July 07, 2011
Small Successes

Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Some prayers.
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you, and I detest all my sins, because of Your just punishments, but most of all because they offend You, my God, who are all-good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin.
Some other prayers I want them to learn are:
O Jesus,
through the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
I offer You my prayers, works,
joys and sufferings
of this day for all the intentions
of Your Sacred Heart,
in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
throughout the world,
in reparation for my sins,
for the intentions of all my relatives and friends,
and in particular
for the intentions of the Holy Father.
Amen.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Tasty Tuesday: Chicken Vegetable soup
Monday, July 04, 2011
Smart Martha Monday
Joseph in the cupboard.
Joseph keeps climbing in our draws. I decided to take a photo to share.
Here is a video of him getting out.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Weekend wrap up
On Friday night, Sam had his year 12 formal. I took him down the street on Friday afternoon and bought him a suit. The shop keeper told me he will get married in this suit. Maybe one day. We will see. I may be a bit bias but I think he looks pretty good in this suit.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Some atheists will argue that there does not have to be an objective moral law rooted in and reflecting the character of God
They claim that we can figure out for ourselves how to make wise, good and ethical decisions. One suggestion would be to ask ourselves the simple question: what will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people? What choice will result in the greatest total amount of happiness?
The major problem with this alternative ethical standard is that there is no way of measuring the greatest total amount of happiness. An atheist will define ‘happiness’ in terms of his naturalist worldview and the values that flow from it. A Christian will define happiness in terms of his theistic worldview and the values that flow from it. For example, an atheist might argue for smaller families on the grounds that each child will have better clothing and toys therefore more happiness. A Catholic might argue for a large family on the grounds that each child will have more love, more sharing and more memories, and therefore more happiness since happiness does not come from having lots of material possessions.
Our worldview determines our values and our ideas of where happiness is to be found. Happiness is not some measurable commodity that can be weighed objectively as a basis for making ethical decisions.
Another serious problem with the ‘happiness’ method of doing ethics is that once the happiness of the individual is subordinate to the happiness of the group, nearly anything can be justified. If what is important in moral reasoning is the ‘total amount of happiness’ then the happiness of the individual becomes secondary. The individual is no longer an end in himself but has become a means to the happiness of the group. Virtually any behavior can be justified on the grounds that it will result in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
Another problem for the naturalist who subscribes to the ‘happiness’ method of doing ethics is that it is actually inconsistent with the naturalist worldview. If there is no God as the naturalist asserts, no moral law and if humans are mere products of natural processes, accidents of chance and time; then why should we care about what results in the greatest total amount of happiness? Why should we choose to allow this arbitrary standard to bind us in our freedom? Why shouldn’t we do what we want? Why shouldn’t we pick our own arbitrary standard, such as “right will be whatever makes me happy”?
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Friday, July 01, 2011
The front fell off.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Thankful Thursday.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Gastro.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Smart Martha Monday
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Weekend Wrap Up.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Fire!!!!!!
Last night our fire alarm went off and when we looked around, Joseph had dropped one of our carb counting books into the heater. It had caught on fire and given him quite scare. It had started a small fire. We got the book out, turned off the heater and put the fire out. thank goodness we were all close by and it wasn't too serious.
Friday, June 24, 2011
YUM!!!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Thankful Thursday.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Hug a Diabetic day.
Here is a fact sheet about type one diabetes that tells you all about it too.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
The Problem of Evil
In the last post I mentioned a common argument put forward by atheists. If an all good and all powerful God exists, then he would not allow evil to exist. Evil does exist, and so an all good and all powerful God must not exist.
The fact that this is an unsound deductive argument is not the only problem it has. It is only on the basis of a theistic worldview, in which God exists and provides an objective moral standard, that we can call anything objectively evil.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, atheists can’t really speak about good and evil if they are to be consistent. For if there is no supreme standard of ‘good’ which would be God, then nothing can be rightly called ‘good’ or ‘evil.’ Everything just is and therefore any given human act such as murdering an old woman for the money in her purse or starving mentally ill people to death because they are inconvenient to have around cannot really be classified as ‘evil.’ You may not like their actions but if God does not exist you have no basis higher than your own private preferences for labeling them as ‘evil.’
In a naturalist universe, nothing exists but particular material things simply doing what they naturally do. The problem of evil can only be a problem with a theistic worldview. Within a theistic worldview one might ask the question: Since God is all good and all powerful, I wonder why he allows evil to exist as he does?
Atheists must assume the existence of God and of moral absolutes in order to even pose the problem of evil. How then can the problem of evil be used as an argument against God’s existence?
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Smart Martha Monday
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The Twister
Friday, June 17, 2011
Quick 7.

Thursday, June 16, 2011
Does the existence of evil prove the non-existence of a good God?
If an all good and all powerful God exists, then he would not allow evil to exist. Evil does exist, and so an all good and all powerful God must not exist.
This assertion is an unsound deductive argument. It’s unsound because it assumes the truth of a premise that cannot be known. It takes for granted that an all good and all powerful God could not or would not allow evil to exist even for a limited time. Since evil does exist, the God Christians and other believe in cannot exist. If it is true that an all good and all powerful God could not or would not allow evil to exist even for a limited period of time then of course the argument works.
How does the atheist know that an all good and all powerful God could have no possible reason for allowing evil to exist for a time? The atheist cannot know this. In fact, a good, loving, and all powerful God might conceivably have a number of reasons for allowing evil to exist for a time and apparently he does.
It may be hard for us to understand why God allows evil, but the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God.
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Tasty Tuesday: French Onion Soup
Monday, June 13, 2011
Sewing a new jacket
This is a jacket pattern I bought a couple of years ago. I opened it and read the instructions and frightened myself. I love the style and think it would look great but the pockets are welt pockets. I haven't ever sewn welt pockets and the instructions looked quite complicated. So instead of having a failure, I put the pattern away and haven't attempted to sew it since. Sunday, June 12, 2011
Happy Birthday to the Church.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
A long weekend.
This weekend is a long weekend in Australia. We have Monday of to celebrate the Queens birthday. It will be great to have an extra day off.
Joseph seems to have picked up a cold and spent a lot of time yesterday sleeping in my arms. Today he seemed a bit better but still has rosey red checks.
Hopefully he will improve because I am hoping to do some sewing over the next couple of days. Today he was pretty happy playing with the other children while I did some cooking so I hope he will be tomorrow too.
I hope all the other Australians have a great long weekend.
Friday, June 10, 2011
What do Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot have in common? They were all atheists.
Atheists have used their amoral principles to wreak unthinkable violence against their fellow human beings around the world.
Joseph Stalin was a man committed to the dream of a civilization of power set free from the constraints of belief in God. Early in his life he had been a student preparing for ministry in the Russian Orthodox Church. He eventually came to reject God and all religion as the mere invention of man. Later in life he went on to build one of the first officially atheistic states in the world.
Stalin was probably personally responsible for the deaths of more innocent people than anyone who has ever lived. In the forced famines of 1932 he engineered to bring about the collectivization of Russian farming. It has been estimated the he purposely starved to death some seven million land owning farmers. Millions more were executed or taken to the gulags.
Mao Tse-Tung, the infamous Communist Chinese dictator, was a committed atheist – so committed, in fact, that he exerted the considerable might of the Chinese army and political apparatus to force, as far as he possibly could, all Chinese citizens under his regime into atheism.
Mao Tse-Tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of a quarter of the world’s population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime.
In Cambodia, under the dictator Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime, more than two million human beings were executed or worked to death by their atheist guards acting under orders from their atheist boss.
It would be dishonest to suggest that these dictators had no connection with their materialistic worldviews. Atheism as a worldview teaches us that right and wrong are a matter of subjective personal opinion – entirely relative and thus, gives us reason to treat others as a means to our ends. In essence, the naturalist worldview doesn’t teach us to be good.
How were Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot able to commit such horrible crimes? Because they viewed these human beings as the mere product of evolution. How can anything be wrong if God does not exist? We may not like what some have done. But how can it be objectively wrong?
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Small Successes.

So these are my small successes for this week:
(1) We found 5 of the 8 missing library books. One of the three that is missing was broken by Joseph so we will have to pay to replace that one anyway. Hopefully we will find the other two this weekend. I have a few more cupboards to go through.
(2) been up the last two nights at 12.30 and 3.00 for Tom since he has been having high sugar levels. It is much easier to get up to him now that Joseph sleeps mostly through the night. It was pretty cold though and I really didn't want to get out of my nice warm bed.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
16 months.
Things he likes:
- bottles of milk,
- bath time.
- going for a walk in the pusher.
- riding his bike.
- playing with the other children.
He can clap his hands and give a high 5 when we ask him too.
When we say lets go, he heads straight for the door and knows that we are going out.
He also knows that if mum grabs her handbag, we are probably going out too.
If we say to him, do you want a bath, he heads straight into the bath.
Words we have heard him say so far:
mum. hot. Jett (Brigette). Nam (Sam).
Here he is tonight when I asked him if he wanted a bath.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Our weekend.
Here is a video of Joseph on the swing.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Adolf Hitler was clearly committed to a vision of the world that was essentially Darwinian, Nietzschean and atheistic.
Freidrick Nietzche, the father of modern atheism believed that man was an animal evolving from beast to what he referred to as the “Superman” A race of supermen unchained from the shackles of religion, belief in God and morality, who would use their intelligence and will to create their own world.
Adolf Hitler was clearly committed to a vision of the world that was essentially Darwinian and Nietzschean. Hitler had his own twisted version of Nietzsche’s “superman” – the infamous Aryan master race. He admired Nietzsche, read his work and visited the archives in Berlin where a photo was taken of him gazing up at the philosopher.
Hitler despised as did his atheist mentor, the core moral values of Christianity – goodness, mercy, love and forgiveness. Instead, he worshiped the gods of power and lived by a morality that was akin to Nietzache’s new ethic for a new age. He saw himself as implementing a Darwinian law of nature that would result in the elimination of the unfit and bring about a civilization fit for a master race.
In the atheist world view of nature, it is good for the strong to devour the weak, because that is how the evolution of species progresses. If human beings are nothing but accidents of chance and time, material substances and nothing more, why shouldn’t Hitler eliminate those he perceives to be inferior and weak?
If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. The gas chambers of Auschwitz are the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment. The gas chambers were not prepared by some ministry in Berlin but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
Although atheism need not necessarily result in immorality and violence, it certainly leads some adherents in that direction. It removed from consideration the existence of a good and loving God – and with him, any objective standard by which the actions or moral choices of another can be judged.
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Quick 7.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
“God is Dead” says Freidrich Nietzche, the father of modern atheism.
In the previous post I pointed out that if atheistic naturalism is true, ethics must therefore be personal and relative, that men and women, families and nations must simply choose for themselves what they will consider ‘right for them’ and ‘wrong for them’.
This thought seems harmless at first, but as you read through “The Godless Delusion” this harmless thought becomes very problematic.
Freidrich Nietzche, the son of a Lutheran minister, has been spoken of as the father of modern atheism. He came to reject Christianity and saw that atheism implied not only moral relativism but also the death of morality.
According to Nietzche, man is an animal evolving from beast to what he reffered to as the “Superman” A race of supermen unchained from the shackles of religion, belief in God and morality, who would use their intelligence and will to create their own world.
In the meantime, whatever stands in the way of this evolution must be obliterated. More than anything else, Christianity stands in the way, especially with its teachings about humility and compassion, ideals that Nietzsche detested. He asked the question, how can man erect a civilization of power on pathetic ideals about love, peace, and kindness? Christianity must be ruthlessly destroyed in order to make way for the race of supermen who would rise above Christian superstition about the God who isn’t there.
Once Nietzche’s ideas began seeping into European intellectual circles, things started heading downhill rapidly. These ideas coupled with Darwinism and other naturalist sources were instrumental in propelling Europe towards the worst era of violence it had ever experienced.
From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
An evening with Kathy Evans.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Tania's pumpkin Tea Cake.
Today I made a pumpkin tea cake. Tania gave me the recipe in my last post.
This cake looks delicious. I would tell you how it tastes but I am taking it to share for supper tonight. Our parish is having Kathy Evans talk about her healing from brain and lung cancer through the intercession of St. Mary MacKillop.
Here is the recipe:
Pumpkin Tea Cake:
25ogms butter
3/4 cup caster sugar
1 teaspoon grated orange rind
2 eggs
1/2 cup mashed pumpkin
1/2 cup desiccated coconut
2 cups self raising flour
3/4 cup milk
Icing:
60gms butter
1 cup icing sugar
1 tablespoon milk
1/4 teaspoon cinnamon
Mixture:
Beat butter and sugar together. Add grated orange. Add eggs 1 at a time. Add mashed pumpkin and coconut. Stir in sifted flour alternately with milk. Grease a deep 20cm round cake tin, use greased paper on bottom of tin. Pour mixture into cake tin and cook in a moderate oven (180 -200C) for 1 1/4 hours.
Icing:
Mix all the ingredients together in saucepan in stove. Ice cake and sprinkle with coconut.
Please pray for a cure for Type One Diabetes
Our sons Tom and Christopher and our daughter Amelia are type one diabetics. We pray everyday for a cure. We do not want one by illicit means though so don't support any organisation that contributes to Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Click on the photo of Tom and Christopher to read about why I am against using Embryonic Stem cells for a cure.











