underway bagsесс  underway 6 8 7 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 3  incident , if you collect a cat, it will fly up a tree to be Beast nor until he becomes fine ! That one will try to attack a obviously If you collect a virus conversa te hamla kar ke wat yi lot di war daata nu anjam ditaar jis di Pokemon Gloves commercials video vion meyaya hai Meg sag det hai, Bel rer hote sh vaaare hoke hamla war on de ne us to nagdi khol main de ne Dadi ka mamla jalandadatta severe severe haunted ä seme jith hai Bel Re Vol Hamla vara neitting the cycle with getting the second target the new cub after. . . . past cyclist trying his best and he pushed his target alot but Бог is still going down and after the collision he being hit on he being hitting the target by the mobile he will start attacking. after the problem of making an out самый to fight the Feed as a way to become Sherpa fish when the angle of Perd今日は theresearch is being opened on and the position of the kill ឲាឱូၜរាលីᧀញ as Àទនយ�我是ទទរ� ref� ga comparisons �γαពើរុ� lent� retailer� went on 我ិង�יאច� respiratory�aser�昨� 들어가ៀទ៑ Chanw motor ិសcadeំokee៓ B sixteen B 15 cenge స Realm Do이는 వా సెకేట్న్ Megビ � demasi న్ల్ Michigan సేఊకా దా సోఖరని wrestlerase నికయఋఆఎఙాస్రి శిలీ


For the circuit python parsec today I wanted to show you how simple it is to set up capacitive touch sense inside of circuit python. So this is an example where I have a little cutie pie here and I'm going to use one of its pins as a capacitive touch pin which means I can touch it or get really really close to it without even touching it and it'll sense the difference in the capacitive storage potential of me and effectively close the circuit for me or touch it to create some sort of an effect inside of the code. So in this example I just have one pin on here the RX pin and when I can when I touch it you can see it's acting like a button. I just have it turning on a bunch of these LEDs here. I've got a funky a broken neopixel ring here so ignore these busted ones over here. But that is just the same as any kind of button or switch that you could close except it doesn't require an additional mechanical part. This is also really effective for when you want to cover something because you don't actually have to make contact with it so you can use a piece of paper or fabric or something like that and still be able to touch something. So let's take a look at how this works. What's happening in code? I'm importing the board for pin definitions, importing time so I can put a little delay in, importing the touch I O library and I'm importing neopixel. Then I set up a variable called touch pin which equals touch I O dot touch in and then the board dot RX pin or whatever pin you're using. Then I have a little bit of neopixel set up and then it's just so simple inside of the main loop of the program I just simply check to see if touch pin value is true. If it is true then the things inside of this happen LEDs get filled red. I print the word touch and then I have a little sort of debounce pause there. Otherwise it lifts the the pins back up to black. And so that's how easy it is to set up a capacitive touch pin inside of Circuit Python and that is your Circuit Python, Parsec.


afternoon all. Most of you probably already know me. My name is Dave Chin. I work for Red Hat. I'm the XFS maintainer. So I generally work with file systems. I've done enough file systems talks. This thing on needs to be higher up. Try that. Can people hear me now? That better? Okay. Do I need to start again? Yeah. So normally I talk about file systems, but I've decided I didn't really want to talk about file systems this time, but I was looking for some kind of inspiration when the call for papers was out. So I didn't really know what I was going to talk about, but a talk generally for me starts with a flame war, a bit of a rant, someone complaining, a bit of shouting backwards and forwards, maybe an argument or two. So we've got to have something like that. So it would have been mid-June, something like that. This came along on the Linux kernel mailing list, a patch. Somebody said they reviewed it. And the reply from the author was, well, I'm not looking for reviews. I'm actually looking for testers. That kind of didn't really sit well with me. And so discussion ensued, and there were a few things thrown backwards and forwards, and I got to the point where I decided that I didn't have time for a flame war right then. And then I remembered the call for papers was out. So let's start with a few simple definitions. I mean, we can debate things. I'll just take some simple ones. I mean, computer science, it's really when you look at it, it's the theory and process behind what we do. It's provably robust logic constructions, verification techniques for your code, languages to express those logic structures and techniques. It's the theory behind it. It's the science behind it. Software engineering. You can see where this is going now, can't you? Software engineering is the process of producing software that provably meets end user requirements. It's making working software. It's building something. It's engineering. It's not science. Programming. Is this something we all do? We produce code. And of course there's a programmer. It's somebody who programs. They're nice, simple definitions and keep them in mind. Okay, so there's elephants in the room, aren't there? Programming is what we do. So if we're getting paid to this, we do it because we enjoy it. Why on earth would anybody consider it harmful? It's really essential. So where am I coming from here? Oh, this is the interesting part, isn't it? So putting up monkeys together and you get a self-extracting, exor-encrypted shell script that contains the works of Shakespeare. It's bound to happen, but I can't help but think there's something wrong with that. Code monkeys are an appealing concept, but I don't really like having to deal with code monkeys.  You want to be actually doing something other than just randomly hammering on code and hoping that it comes out right. Because if you just hope it comes out right, you end up with something like this. Can anybody work out what on earth that code is doing? I can see by the stunned looks in the audience that nobody has got any clue. I still can't work out what it's supposed to be doing. It's a mess of ternary operators and so on. So is that a work of genius? So a real programmer, a sub-variety of hacker, one possessed of a flippant attitude toward some complexity that is arrogant even when justified by experience.  Now if you had that code, would that terrify you if you had to maintain it? So it could have been genius. But think about it, the competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull. Therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague. Nesting ternary operators is something you can do but it's not something very nice. It's a clever trick. It's a hack. It's a look how smart I am type of thing. On the other hand if we look at a few simple things perhaps there's another reason for it. A person sufficiently skilled in an art is required to be able to understand that they aren't very skilled at all. If you are unskilled you might know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to know that you were dangerous. You could be a risk to other people. You need to learn the fundamentals of something to realize how little you understand about that topic. So that code maybe it was just somebody who didn't understand what they were doing. There's different reasons that could be behind that. We don't know what it is but it could be a work of absolute genius by somebody who doesn't care about complexity because they're amazing or it could be somebody who doesn't know any better. So let's just take a recent example that some of you may have seen on Lynx kernel mailing list. There was, I hear that after some people know exactly who I'm talking about and what we're not. So there was someone show up who wanted to help and showed all sorts of enthusiasm to help us make Lynx kernel better. They wanted to help. So they started looking through the code and noticed that there were lots of fix me's all through the Lynx kernel code. So they wanted to try and help by fixing the fix me's because that's the obvious place to start, right? Well, no. But the thing is lots of help was actually given from experienced kernel developers. Ted Cho, Steve Rostat, Chris Mason, Joe Perches, Randy Dunlap. They all spent a good amount of time trying to help this enthusiastic young man do the right thing to learn the process, to do things somewhat safely or where his destructive capabilities have limited impact on everyone else. So we gave him documentation to read how to test and validate patches to send them properly so that they didn't make your eyes bleed or would just apply. And also why just removing fix me's was a bad approach to fixing them. The problem was that we kept making the same mistakes. The patches still were white space mangled or just wouldn't apply. He didn't go and read the things that he was asked to read. None of the help, advice and teachings that were given to him and there was a lot and there was a lot of time expended made any difference. What I'm trying to say here is the programmers who don't know their limitations actually affect the collective productivity of a project. And by effect I mean screw it. We waste time if people don't actually or do not have the capability to learn. So there's a lesson in that. To become competent in any undertaking the ability to learn is of primary importance. I mean you're all sitting here now what are you doing? Hopefully you're learning. That's why we're here at the conference. We're not just here to have a good time. We're here hopefully to learn something and apply it to our day to day life. I hope. There's a lesson in that too. Learning is hard. Knowledge is hard. From Elon Musk and his recent Reddit ask me anything. He was asked how he was such a smart guy who remembered everything, all this complex physics stuff and computer stuff and all that sort of stuff. And his comment to that was one bit of advice. It is important of you knowledge as a sort of semantic tree. Make sure you understand the fundamental principles i.e. the trunk and the big branches before you get into the leaves and details or there's nothing for them to hang onto. Knowledge is structured. It comes back to the Kruger Dunning effect isn't it? If the trunk is not there then the leaves just fall off and you don't know that the trunk is there. So this is what my dad said to me when I was 8 or 9 years old. I was trying to do something that I had no idea I couldn't. Don't try to keep the information in your head. You'll never fit everything you need to know in there. Instead I only keep an index in my head where the information I need lives so that I can find it quickly when I actually need it. So now you know my secret. Details or try to learn details and keep all of those details in your head does not make you smart. You might be able to recite them but it doesn't mean that you understand them. You need to know where to find the details not the details themselves. So if somebody asked me about some corner case behavior in XFS my first answer is almost always hold on let me go and look at the code. But I'll find the code that I need to look at in a few seconds and have an answer in a minute because I know where to find the answer. It's not up here. I've got terabytes of space and information and I've got all the Google. You don't have to keep all the information in your head to be smart. You just need to know where to find it. And if you're talking about code if you're not using C-Scope you should. So let's apply this somewhat to programming. This is something that Dijkstra said a long time ago about reliability of programs that we create. Reliability concerns forces to restrict ourselves to intellectually manageable programs. Intellectually manageable.  You can think about it. You can turn it over. You can keep it as a whole as a structure tree of knowledge with all the leaves of detail in it. And that's how you end up with reliability. You can think about it as a whole. You don't miss a single piece of it. So with that in mind let's move on to another quote from Dijkstra and start to approach that from a different direction. So this was one of the things that was quoted to me in amongst that flame ore that originally motivated this talk. And I initially read this in a different way and took someone smarter than me to actually point out that there's another way of looking at this. If you carefully read its literature and analyze what its devotees actually do you will discover that software engineering has accepted as its charter how to program if you cannot. So how do you read that? How do you interpret it? That software engineering is a crutch for incompetent programmers? That's how I kind of, you know, wasn't said to me in a particularly nice manner so that's how I kind of interpreted it. I didn't reply to it. I mentioned to someone else and I'm not sure whether Neil's in the room here. No, probably not. He turned it around the other way. But what Dijkstra is actually saying is that humans cannot program. The competent programmers engineers know their limitations and hence understand that they need a larger framework for projects they can't fit entirely in their skull. Think about it. A bit of context. Again from Dijkstra. Programming is one of the most difficult branches of applied mathematics. The poorer mathematicians had better remain pure mathematicians. How many people here are trained mathematicians? Oh, we have a couple. Yeah, a few. How many of you think you're programmers? Okay, everyone here though writes code. This is where we're starting to go. There's very few people that are capable of understanding and applying the mathematics required to design and prove a program is bug free. So where do these mathematicians sit on the scale? Well, according to Dijkstra, there's somewhere that side of the mathematicians. Right up the, you know, there's not very many mathematicians that can deal with the complexities of software. Forget about your biologist chemists and I think the software engineers are somewhere on the other side of the sociologists. So how good are your math skills? So if we're talking about maths and using maths to prove whether a program is bug free and your maths are not very good, how do you prove that your program works? Well, you run tests, don't you? But this is what we hear about tests. The first moral of the story is that program testing can be used very effectively to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence. You can't use testing to prove that your code does not have any bugs in it. You can prove that it might do mostly what it's supposed to do, but you can never prove that it's bug free. You can't prove that it's perfect. But then if you want more effective program is you'll discover that they should not waste their time debugging, but they should not introduce the bugs to start with. So we've got a bit of a dichotomy here. We're not very good at maths, but we're being told that we need to be good at maths so we don't create programs with bugs. And we have to be good enough that we don't introduce bugs because debugging is a waste of time. I think everybody here spends more time debugging their code than they do actually writing it. I know I certainly do. I'm not a very good programmer.  We are not very good programs. We're not very good mathematicians. And computer science really has not advanced sufficiently to provide us the incompetent with the tools that we need to prove that complex software is perfect. If we want to consider debugging a waste of time then we need better tools so that we don't create the bugs in the first place. But we don't have the mathematical background or capability or the tools. So it's not a good look. The conclusion I draw from this is that there are no programmers that are capable of writing bug-free software at a typical modern program scale. Sure, anybody could write a bug-free hello world program. Well, assuming there's no bugs in the C Library link too, or the Perl interpreter that you're using, but we'll just ignore that for the moment. Think about yesterday's presentation about the SEL4 microkernel. It was 10,000 lines of code that they've mathematically proven to be correct. It took them 10 years of work. And the worst part about that is that the verification logic is a couple of orders more complex than the code itself. That's only 10,000 lines of code. How big is the Linux kernel? We're almost up to 20 million lines of code. So if that's 10,000 lines of code 10 years a year for every thousand lines of code, what we're going to be here until the heat death of the universe. Though if mathematics and computer science gets better, then it might be a bit faster. Andrew Carroll just gave us the talk that was in this room about metrics and SEPH and so on. He mentioned yesterday that he'd read a paper from a conference on formal verification techniques earlier in the year. And the paper estimated that the pool of capable mathematicians that could prove that software was bug-free to be around 1,000 people worldwide. 100 of them were at that conference. There aren't that many people that can do this for the Linux kernel or pretty much any open source software you care to name. We simply don't have the mathematical capability to do that. And so it's Paul's friends that need to save us. Yeah. So perhaps we need to take a different track. Okay, so let's go back to some of the code. This came from Andrew Morton roughly around the same time I put the call for papers in. He was reviewing a piece of code fixed to the memory management code that was scanning page reclaim, scanning the page lists in page reclaim. He couldn't work out what was going on. He couldn't work out what the code was supposed to do or what the bug was that was supposed to be fixed. First of all, he calls the code absolutely awful. And he says that he's reduced to trying to reverse engineer the intent from the implementation. It's not very good code when you're at that point. So what we've already seen here is we're reduced to the fact that somebody hasn't written code very well, not a very good programmer. Or it's a bunch of people that aren't a very good program. Aren't very good programmers as a collective. This is not uncommon. It actually happens quite a lot. So what did Andrew say to fix this? Someone please prepare a patch which fully documents the design. Let's get down and review that. Once the patch is complete then let's start looking at the implementation. So what he's basically said is let's go back to first principles to fix the code. Design review, design documentation. Where does that come from? What process gives us that? It's not programming. It's software engineering. To fix bad code we need to engineer solutions. We don't program to fix bad code. What it comes down to is if you can't understand the design of the code then you aren't capable of proving that any specific change to that code is fit for purpose. That you actually have fixed the bug that it intended to fix or introduce the feature correctly that you intended to introduce. You have to actually understand the code before you can change it in any way. A different look on this. Ken Thompson was one of the original plan nine designers and implementers. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. How many people here work on code that other people have written? Just about everyone. So what Ken is telling us is you should not trust the code that anybody else has written. I don't even trust the code I write. Come on. But if we put it in the context of everything else that we've just learned about, we have a kind of startling conclusion. According to the accepted wisdom, human programming capability doesn't scale in a trustworthy manner beyond one brain. That assumes that that brain can fit the entire problem space in it. My brain is not big enough for the Linux kernel. It's not big enough for most of the things that I work on. I need help pretty much because programming as an exercise, as a pursuit, it's not a viable method of developing large software projects. We just simply don't have the capability to comprehend the complexity of the systems that we're working on. And as we well know, Linux fits into that category. No one person holds everything in their head. We need some way of dealing with this problem. Linux does actually have, as a project, a way of dealing with this problem. What we've got really is essentially a hierarchy of diverse knowledge, skill, and coordination means through communication channels that we all use. And we have fairly well-known, constantly-involving processes. We have some kind of external structure around the code that we use. A bit of guru meditation perhaps.  Gurus talk to sub-gurus, sub-gurus talk to gurus. You've got gurus in training. You have productive minions that produce all this code that the gurus look at and bless and pass on up to the guru at the top who's sitting in the corner there. Of course, right at the bottom, you've got to have minions in training. Who's going to replace the gurus that we have now? They've got to come from somewhere. And from the earlier example that I gave you, the gurus at the top are even trying to train the minions right at the bottom as they first come in to learn the processes, to learn the habits, the techniques to build that structured knowledge tree in their brain that will enable them to reach the top of the tree. What it comes down to is that any large project, it's not programming that matters. It's knowledge transfer. It's the most critical process in any large project. You can't sustain a large project just by programming alone. You have to be able to communicate what's in your head to the next person because what's in their head is something different. It's not the same as what's in your head. That structured knowledge tree has a different structure in their head. It might contain different leaves and branches and it might be connected up completely differently. But if you don't try to communicate and transfer what you know to them and vice versa, the two things that you work on will not work together. And if they're part of the same project, then that means that project is not going to succeed. You have to be able to talk, communicate and transfer the knowledge that you have from top to bottom, from left to right to anyone that's in the project. And not discriminate just because you don't know who that person is and you've never seen them before. You have to assume that there's competence until it's been demonstrated that there isn't. A classic case of knowledge transfer that we have in the kernel, memory barriers.txt. Now, this has started off as just a simple manner of documenting some locks that we have in a couple of SMP read barriers and write barriers. But now, as Mel so eloquently put it, if documentation.marriedbarriers.txt could not be used to frighten small children before, it certainly can now. It frightens me. Paul is mostly responsible for that document and I... Pardon? Paul says thank you. But I really don't want to know what the inside of his skull looks like. Because that's the way he... That's the amount of knowledge that his head contains on concurrent programming and so on. I'm glad that he is the expert on that stuff and we have him in this project. There you go. He says he used the same trick my dad did. The same trick that I use. There's a structured knowledge tree that you know where to find it. But here's the scary thing as Jonathan over here said in response to the same thread. There may come a point in time when understanding memory barriers.txt will be mandatory for working in much of the kernel. That is a scary thought because that is a horrifically complex set of semantics that if we have to code around that, I'm going to go sit in the beach and drink beer. But what a comes down to once again is that that stuff doesn't fit in my skull. Just like all of XFS doesn't fit in Paul's skull. But we have to trust each other that what he's putting in that document, what's in his skull, is correct and it works. Because if it doesn't, all of the stuff in XFS that uses all of the locking, the RCU, that just breaks. You have to trust the other people, the knowledge that they have, and they apply to the project that you're working on. More than you need to trust the code that they write. Because it's the knowledge that they apply that then you then use in your own code. To trust is. So when you think about that, consider again Andrew Morton's comments about that code, that patch, where he couldn't understand what the bug being fixed was. He couldn't understand the code. If a guru needs to reverse engineer the code to understand the original intent of it, then we have a failing of process and a failing of knowledge transfer. The code wasn't documented well enough. There was no design. Where did that code actually come from? Well, in a way you could say that programming is at fault there because that particular code originally was a result of a forklift upgrade of the memory management subsystem. Back in 2.4.10, Andrea. I think it is. I never remember his last name. Linus replaced the whole VM from him. It all came out of his head. One programmer knew the whole problem space.  But he solved the problems. Not everybody else understood it. And over time, all of the other heads that have been bashing against that code and bashing against that design, it's morphed. It's grown organically. But it's never been documented what it was originally supposed to do. There may have been a few people that understood it at the time. But that was many, many years ago. And without decent documentation, we slap a band-aid here, we slap a band-aid there, and all of a sudden nobody knows how it works. That's not a failing of our process as such as it is a failing of our knowledge transfer. The process needs to enable that and it needs to enable it such that you can understand the code you've written in five years time. And somebody else can understand that code in five years time without picking your brain. So let's go back to the original quote, full circle. This in itself, as far as I'm concerned, embodies a fundamental misunderstanding of the development process we use. When the process that we use is not understood, that process that brings all of our skulls together, when we don't do that, what do we fall back on? We try to fit it in our own skull and we program. And so we don't understand the whole problem. What do we get? We get bugs. Single brains aren't sufficient to keep our code in good working order. Sorry, I've lost the... We try to avoid this. And so we have a reviewer's statement of oversight. And one of the things that that is supposed to you say, when you say I've reviewed the code, reviewed by David at fromalbert.com, one of the things that I'm asserting when I say that is that the code is free of no one issues which would argue against its inclusion. So if you look at a piece of code and you say you've reviewed it, did you compile it? Did you do basic checks in a test environment? How can you say that a patch of any significance is free from no one issues if you haven't actually executed that code in a test environment? Having executed in code implies that you've actually compiled as well. But people submit patches that don't compile and sometimes because they're big, long patches, you don't notice that there's a missing semi-colon somewhere that causes it to fail. The code usually isn't sufficient to determine that the code is ready for inclusion. The patch is ready for inclusion. A thought review like that requires the ability to fit the entire problem space in your head and fully understand it. And we've already established that code that is complex, we can't fit it in our heads.  So you can start to see where we're going here. If we can't keep the problem space in our heads, it's naive to think that we can do the review in our heads. A thought review doesn't require the reviewer to actually reproduce or verify the results claimed by the proposed change. It's an important word in there, verification. Just looking at the code doesn't even take into account the wider context of the problem being solved as well. There is actually more than just code that we need to look at in a review. So again from Andrew, any question which a reviewer asked should be viewed as a defect in the patch. The patch isn't finished until people can read it without having questions.  Then it's clearly not past review. Review is more than code. Does the description of the change adequately describe the problem being solved, the bug that is occurring? Does it explain why the change needs to be made and why there needs to be done that way and not some other way? Is it the only solution? Maybe, maybe not. The reviewer will ask, oh why didn't you do it this way? There needs to be an answer to that. The commit description in the patch should have all of this stuff in it. So it's there for the reviewer so they don't have to ask questions. So when somebody comes along three or four years later scratching their head, oh I wonder why this code's like this. Oh hold on, I'll go and look up the change history. Get blame. Oh that one there. Oh that was the problem.  What problem? Pardon? What commit message? That's simply not acceptable as a patch. Sometimes patches are simple enough that just the single line description is sufficient. But anything that's changing more than a couple of lines of code is going to require more to describe what the problem was it was solving and why it needs to be solved. Things, you know, we might also need documentation for it. You know it's an API change. Maybe there's man pages that need to be fixed up to go along with it or maybe there's something in the documentation directory that needs to be updated. There could be a whole heap of things that lie outside just the code change being done. And the thing is none of these are part of programming. They have nothing actually to do with the code change being made. They have everything to do with the context in which it's being made and the processes that we go through to decide if the change is good or not, what risks we need to take into account when making that change, so on. The moment I say risks we're well outside of programming we're definitely into the engineering environment. Engineering is all about risk management. And if you don't know why, what, how and whether it works, you can't really do any sort of risk analysis to determine whether we should take the fix or not. Is taking the fix more risky than leaving the code like it was? It's a trade-off that you have to actually decide because, you know, we might have a bug that only one machine out of 10 million hits once a year. But we suspect that the fix for that bug is going to make the machines, every other machine a whole lot more unstable. Is that a good fix to take? It's a risk analysis process. It's something you've got to think about. That's not ever considered in any programming textbook, computer science textbook at all. So to look at this problem as a programming problem is to miss a whole lot of what we do and what we should be doing. Design, build, break, repeat. We have to assume that the design and the implementation will break at some point. Simply because we cannot keep everything in our heads. Programming requires that the end result to be perfect, that we can prove that it's not going to break. But we can't do that. Programming also assumes the hardware is not going to fail, which we can't do either. So really when you look at it, it comes down to a simple thing. Requiring perfection where perfection is not possible or is not required is actively harmful. And that's basically why the talk is told. Programming considered harmful. We cannot reach perfection. Thank you.


I come in the kitchen curious and stuck my hands on the stove And got burned and my hands stay stuck to the stove till somebody got there. Yeah, we on boss talk When I was two years old One and a half close to two years Mm-hmm The story is my mama was cooking, right? I'm this little curious dude like I'm already the man of the house like it to mm-hmm so I'm just learning how to walk she cook and she got something in the stove. This the 70s the stoves was different than they are now Mm-hmm. I'm talking about them was real live gas fire stuff with you know I'm saying Story was she had to go to the store real quick or something cuz she Something with the food Ingredient or something I gotta go grab right left me there, right? With my great, ain't he who wasn't paying attention. No, who was who was already was amputated Oh, she just wheelchair all the time or she's in the bed, okay, right?  Screaming and this old lady are scars still cuz them should be scars. Oh I see it right there Got you right Imagine this lady back there.  It's only your hand got burnt up Yeah, because I don't even just you know, right good when I think about a real gas stove because I remember those Okay, is it that so because I had one growing up. It was a gas stove But when you get a matches you light it and the fire pops up Is it one of those in the 70s? Okay? Well Yeah, because I'm thinking if it was one of those you should have been burnt totally up like burn you up Hallelujah, praise God. I'm still here today. Wow man. So yeah, we on boss talk


Ddiwyngas. Rwy'n edrych chi'n bwysig fry fyddai ar gyfer'bu ffriflech hind stucku Daith yng Nghymru. Rwy'n edrych chi'n dda i'r Efoeddwyr yng Ngheirfaith Alexhander Horsbarrar, y Minister of the Oeith Nid, Sut Nicholas Bucklw Parish Church, y Gymh DNI Ysgrifennag i'w Lotho Lleidodraeth I Consoleio i Trofiadau Rufnidau i D grefnyddol yng Nghymru. Thank you for your invitation and the honour of addressing Parliament. The story is a difficult one. mae'n amlygu y maen nhw. Rwy'n ddalodd, rwy'n ddodd, rwy'n ddodd, rwy'n fawr i gwybodaeth i gael i'r gael. Mae'r unrhyw i'r ddodd yw'n ddefnyddio. Rwy'n ddodd, rwy'n ddodd, rwy'n ddodd i'r gael i'r gael i'r gael i'r ddodd, rwy'n ddodd, rwy'n ddodd. Mae'n gweithio o'r ysgolwyd yn iawn, gael i'r gael i'r ddodd o'r gael i'r ddodd. screwed in which I'll stay she find the house in which she's staying forces her way in and demands the help she and her daughter so desperately need the man turns on her calls her a dog and says what he does is not for the likes of her if you think I've been telling a contemporary story, That's good, but I haven't been. It is a story from the earliest of the Gospels, Mark. The woman's name is not known, but the man's name is Jesus of Nazareth. Christians do not readily acknowledge that Jesus could be cruel, but on this occasion he was. It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs, he said. Meaning that what he was saying and doing was for the Jews, not others.  I'm not asking for much, just a scrap. If you now think I've been telling an ancient story, that would only be partly true. This is a contemporary story too. Desperate people from the Middle East are demanding help from those they know can help. Those who are drowning in the Mediterranean are not tasting even a scrap. The woman's words changed Jesus. He healed her daughter and in the next story restored a man's hearing saying the Aramaic word effatha, which means be opened. Jesus' own heart was opened by the electrifying words of that desperate, suffering woman.  That Aramaic word should ring in the ears of all of us. Every day we should tell ourselves be open. Open to our minds being changed, open to those in need, open to our wealth being shared. A closed heart is a cruel heart, but from an open heart flow love compassion and care. Thank you. We now move to topical questions


Whenever I think about what a person is doing, when I see someone doing something good, something bad when they're in the midst of something, and I try to figure them out, understand them, I'm always trying to place myself in the place of their mind. Try to get an idea as to what they might be thinking, what they could be going through. Now, obviously that is an impossible task to try to put yourself in the position of the person going through something what they're thinking, what's on their mind. What must they be feeling at that time? Well, when I think about Jesus, and obviously this is the week that we think about more often than not than him going to the cross, it makes me think about what was he thinking? What must have been on his mind? I know what would have been on my mind, but then again, I'm not God, I'm not Jesus. And so I'm thinking to myself, what in the world could he possibly be thinking? There must have been a million things in his mind. And then we start reading the passages, and we do actually get a bit of a glimpse into his mind, but even before he goes to the cross, we get a chance to understand a little bit of his thought process as well. We used to do this thing when I rented my investment firm and we would teach people how to kind of emulate or mimic people in their buying habits and so forth, and we would talk about the main, the four dominant personalities, analytical, driver, amiable, expressive, and we said, and one of the last questions was, what do you think Jesus was? Well, he was certainly a person who was interested and concerned about the people, but he was also a person who was interested in the task. And I'm pretty sure, this is just me, no, not just me, according to scriptures, he was focused on the task. Now, in him being focused on the task, he was also necessarily focused on the task because of the people.  Because he must have been thinking about hell. And I don't necessarily mean from the vantage point of him being in hell, no, I mean from the vantage point of the people. There is a reason why Jesus came and there was something that he was trying to stop. I've got four daughters. Love my daughters of death. And as a father, I'm always concerned about them. And all my daughters are, they're beautiful daughters, obviously, because they look like their daddy with just hair. That's all. Little less on the mustache, little more on the hair. But these girls are always on my mind when they go someplace, even when they're in the house. But the other day, we were working out and we were outside and my daughter, this was five something in the morning. And she decided to go one in the middle of the workout which she should not have done. But she decides to go for a quick walk, a quick jog, a quick walk. Now it's dark outside. Naturally, me as daddy, I'm bothered. What in the world are you doing, walking away at night? Now it's not night, in an hour or so, the sun will be up, but it's dark outside. And I don't care where you are, I don't care if it's a good neighborhood, bad neighborhood, a lot of ladies find themselves in trouble, even if they're just jogging in their own neighborhood because it's dark. So just as a father, I'm concerned. Why? Because I don't want any hurt or harm to come upon my child. And so what did I think? What I thought of immediately was where she was walking to, the place that she was going and what could possibly happen.  I love her. Do you think it's any less of a concern for God in his thoughts about us? And really in his thoughts about all of creation. Clearly he is concerned about his creation and about his people. And so the reason why he came, obviously, he didn't want anybody to go to hell. Now I wanna look at some passages and I wanna see if you see something in the passage. Matter of fact, in one of the Gospels, he said, we're gonna look at Luke. He says something that the other Gospels in speaking about Jesus here, doesn't mention. So let's go to Jesus' prayer. Jesus is in the garden. And a question that comes up is, was Jesus really filling this whole getting crucified stuff? I'm getting ready to go. Matter of fact, before he gets crucified, he's going to be beat. He's gonna get the 39 minus one lashes with the cat of nine tails. If you've seen the passion of Christ, it's still heartbreaking just to see that. Matter of fact, how many of you all watched The Passion of Christ and knowing why he went through what he went through, even while watching a movie and you can't change the outcome, you were angry about the people beating him and wish that you could be there to do something? Me too. And so before he's going through all of this stuff, he's concerned, it seems like, is he so concerned that he's like, wait a second, Lord, maybe we can figure out something else to do. So let's go to the passage in Luke 22, I'm sorry, yeah, Luke chapter 22, verse, let's start in verse 40. Verse 40, when he arrived at the place, he said to them, that is the other disciples that he took with him, the three. He said to them, pray that you may not enter into temptation. Okay. Wait a minute, wait a second, wait a second, hold up, stop, wait a second. And I keep my eyes on a lot of different things. One day I'm gonna actually show you what I'm looking at. There's one, two, three, four, five, there's seven things that I'm looking at. Seven things, really eight things. Actually nine things when you think about it. I'm looking at the screen. If I have notes up, I'll look at those. I don't happen to have any notes today. I'm looking at the gadgets in front of me. I'm looking at the stream health and so forth. I'm also looking at the chats. And I see something in the chats and it just shocked me. Just shocked me. Sheila, you mean to tell me you have not seen The Passion of the Christ? How could that be? How could, I would say, I would recommend go watch it. Go watch it. I know some folks can't watch it, go watch it. I don't like movies with subtitles, but that particular one, well because you know what's happening. And so it just does something to me. And at this point in time, we had taken a bunch of, I'm one of the associate pastors, we'd taken a bunch of the kids and the younger folks at the church and some adults to go see it. We went to a couple of different theaters and had the entire place. And it was just rough. It was just rough. But anyway, that being the case, let me go back to this. I just saw that and I just, I couldn't imagine. I couldn't imagine not seeing it. So Sheila, make sure you watch it. Anyway, when he arrived at the place, he said, pray that you may not enter into temptation. And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw. So not very far away. And he knelt down and began to pray, which tells you the importance of prayers if Jesus has to pray that he's praying. But there's something special that he's praying about saying, Father, if you are willing, remove this cup for me yet, not my will, but yours be done. Now the question is, why is Jesus asking? It seemed like Jesus asking, can you figure out something else to do? Can you figure out a way for me not to have to go through this? If there be any other way, are you, if you are willing? Notice what he says though. And I want you to pay attention to that. How, how he actually says this. He says, if you are willing, remove this cup. What does that say to you guys if you hear Jesus make the statement? Now, Jesus, it seemed like this is what you came here for. We'll look at some passages in a second, but what would go through your mind if you hear Jesus makes it, if you hear, obviously no one heard him. Now we have the benefit of having this revealed to us through, in this case, through Luke and the other writers, obviously through the Holy Spirit. But if you hear this, if you know this, what would be in your mind? Matter of fact, what if you were there at the moment, if you could have actually been there to be a fly on the wall, I guess in this case, a fly on the tree? Okay, Nelan says it hits humanity, but what about, wait a second though, but this is also God though. And you know what you came here for, but you said, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. What do you all think that Jesus meant by asking if you are willing? Does that convey to you that maybe Jesus was willing? That if the father was willing, then the son would be willing? You know what, yeah, let's figure something out. Let's, cause this is gonna be rough, this is gonna be tough. And we're gonna talk about exactly what is happening, but what do you think that Jesus meant by saying if you are willing? What do you think? Matter of fact, here's a question. Do you think he was asking a question? Do you think he was making, do you think Jesus was maybe even making a request? Was he asking a question? Hey, is there another way that we can do this? Was he making a request? Could you let's figure something else out? Well, the answer to both of those is no. He was not asking and he was not figuring a way out. Let's go back to it. I wanna pull something up. He says, if you are willing. His father, if you are willing. Now this word for willing, there's another Greek word. There's another Greek word that means if you are willing, if you want to, if you wish to. This is the Greek word phelo, which is I desire, I wish. But this word belay from the Greek word bulamai is if you have planned to, if you have caused to be, if you wanted to be, if you have willed it to be. Are you with me? For some people, well, I don't see the difference. Well, here's the difference. Meaning that if there's another way that you have planned it, if there is another way that you have willed it to be, if there's another way that you want it, then let's do it. But whatever it is, your will be done. Jesus is not, and by the way, there's no one there to hear this.  Now, in this, what he's actually saying is, and this is for the benefit of the hearers, and we're gonna see another passage, famous passages about Jesus, that is not him concerned or worried, but it's really for the benefit of the hearers to know why he's doing what he's doing. Now, is there some agony in what Jesus is going through? Sure, as a matter of fact, we're gonna read in a second that it literally uses the word agony, and the Greek word is agonia, which is, I'm in agonized, I'm in pain. These droplets of blood are coming out, what is it called? Lord, I can't even remember the title, the medical term, hematosis, I think it's what it's called, when you are in such agony and pain and you're sweating profusely that the blood vessels, droplets of blood starts coming out through your pores. And this is what we believe is happening here with Jesus. So let's go back to it and finish reading. He says, if you have desire, if you have planted, if you willed it, remove this cup from me, not my will, but yours be done. Now, an angel from heaven, listen to this, an angel, and Luke is the only one that points this out, an angel from heaven appeared to him, strengthening him, and the word for strengthening him in the Greek literally means to strengthen him. How so? We don't know, we don't know, but obviously there was a purpose in this angel. And of course angels are ministering spirits, and so they're there to serve, just like when Jesus was being tempted in the wilderness for 40 days, the angels were there ministering to him at that point in time, because also again, in this state that he's come in, he has come in a lower state. As a matter of fact, to keep this in perspective, in Philippians 2, where he says, being found in an appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. And so he just, excuse me, he comes this way, as a matter of fact, the Bible says, he emptied himself, and he humbled himself, he did that. Obviously this is all in concert with the Father, without question. And so he does so for a specific reason, going back to this in the garden. And so at his weakness, he has come down, he is in the form of a man. He has taken on and appeared to us as a man. He's still God. Now, to what degree has he emptied himself of? The Bible does not tell us. We're not sure how this worked. How much of himself has he emptied, or how much of his godly prerogatives has he set aside voluntarily? Again, he can pick them up. He's God. If at that moment, if he wants to destroy the earth that he could do, he's God. He is God. So there's something going on where this angel is here, ministering him or strengthening him. How so? We don't know. We don't know. Is the angel giving Jesus a pep talk? Don't know. So I don't think so, but we're just not told. We just know that an angel shows up, just like we're not told when he's in the wilderness fasting and angels are ministering him. We don't know in what way. We have no idea. But it's just interesting to know that that is the case. So now angel appeared to him from heaven, strengthening him and being in agony, pain, he was praying fervently and his sweat became like drops of blood falling down upon the ground. When he arose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow and said to them, why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not enter into temptation. Now, obviously we know this happens a couple of times and so we don't need to read this again, but this question is brought up again. So he didn't ask this just once, okay? He asks this again. And so the question is, why make this statement? As a matter of fact, again, it looks like Jesus is bothered by what's going to happen. Well, I imagine so. What's getting ready to happen? One, before the actual crucifixion. Two, the actual crucifixion itself. Well, then three, what is happening that we can't see with him and God? We'll get to that in a second. But if we recall when he's on the cross, John 19, I'm sorry, Matthew 2746, look what it says, verse, after, well, verse 45, after the ninth hour or about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice in verse 46, la, la, la, la, ma sabachthine. And now we have it recorded in Aramaic and we have it recorded in Hebrew. That is, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Jesus asked a question. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Well, we know when something has the word why in it, that is because it's a question. Now, just because you ask a question does not mean you are actually asking a question. I know that sounds a bit tricky, but let me see if I can explain a little bit better. Just because you ask a question does not mean that you're asking a question. We'll have a rhetorical question. I'll ask a question, I'm not asking for you to answer it. When I ask a question that I don't want you to answer and there's no one, by the way, to answer because remember, he's saying this on the cross. He's not getting ready to get an answer. As a matter of fact, it's not as though he didn't know the answer already. He's not looking for, it's not as though he was confused and in a state to where he just didn't know what was going on. What he's asking, oh, by the way, the people hear him. In this case, they hear him. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Before I answer the question, let's go to verse 47. He says, those who were standing there, when they heard it, began saying this man is calling for Elijah. And the reason why, because the words are similar, Elias and Eliyoy, which is my God. And then Elijah, which is also the Hebrew word for my God. Actually, my God is Lord. But they think that he's saying something else. So they can hear what he's saying. Well, what is Jesus saying? Asking the question, he's asking a question where the answer is already implied. If not, it will cause us to ask the question, why is God forsaking him? By the way, we need to know what he just said. What do you think he meant by forsaking him? As a matter of fact, in the chat, if you all can tell me, what do you all think that Jesus meant when he says, why have you forsaken me? What is meant by forsaken? And that has been an issue. It shouldn't be an issue of great concern or debate because we understand what the actual word means, but why have you forsaken me? Well, the word for forsaken, literally means to leave, to leave behind, to desert, to forsake. The Hebrew word that he's quoting out of Psalm 22, Asav also means to leave behind, to desert, to forsake. And so he's asking the Father, my God, my God, why are you deserting me? Why are you leaving me? Why are you leaving me behind? Why have you forsaken me? We obviously know because we know the story that this isn't permanent, but this is for the moment. Now, what we don't know is for how long? We don't know. Well, what we do know is there is some sort of separation to what degree we do not know, but that's literally what the word means, both in Greek and Hebrew. So there's some sort of separation to what degree we don't know or for how long we don't know. Well, that may explain also why Jesus is in his agony because something's gonna happen that's never happened before in the history of Goddom. God, like the kingdom or Christendom, like Goddom. In the history of God's existence, here we've got a time where the Father has forsaken the Son. It's never happened before, never will happen again. To what degree don't know for how long? Well, I can imagine just the thought of that. Also, that necessarily means that would, would that also heighten the pain? Because do we think that, now we don't know, now this is me and us trying to get into his mind, do we think that God has somehow lessened the pain that Christ was gonna go through? Do we think that the hurt, the agony, not just the, by the way, one of the worst parts about being in prison, one of the worst parts about being in prison isn't the prison, it's not that. It's not what can happen in prison. One of the worst parts about being in prison is mentally, spiritually, emotionally, what you go through by simply being separated. That is one of the worst parts. It's just agonizing, it's painful. And so here we have possibly the same thing with Jesus. So now, that being stated, he's saying, why have you forsaken me? Why have you left me? Why have you abandoned me? That's gotta be hurting to think about it, but then when it actually happens, and at the time that it's happening, he's in an extreme amount of pain. You all have heard before where we get this, the term excruciating comes from this out of the cross. The term that is derived from is a term that means out of the cross, this excruciating pain that he's dealing with, one, the actual beating, the pain, the hurt. Again, this is why I actually, I thought a lot about the movie, The Passion, because of all the movies that I've seen where they've shown Jesus being beaten, that one was pretty gory. That one was pretty gory, and someone asked, well, did you think it was that bad? Well, I imagine it may have been worse. I'm pretty sure these people didn't have deadly accuracy with their whips, and so they hit the exact same spot every time, but you've got these shards of glass or bone that stick it into the body, into the flesh, and pulling the flesh to where you can even see flesh, underneath the flesh, the meat.  Here we've got, in order to try to figure out what in the world is this man having to go through? Now, we'll get to this issue, again, why we call this, why this video is titled, What in Hell Was Jesus Thinking? Because I want to make the bigger point. Now, Jesus asked the question, my God, my God, why? Why, why, why, why in the world? Well, do we think that Jesus didn't know? Well, it can't be that as a matter of fact. Let's look at some passages. One passage in Hebrews 12, 12 says, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfected for our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. So in other words, yeah, he knew this was coming. As a matter of fact, he went joyfully. One of the other parts, that's why I like the movie, where he actually embraced the cross. Now, I don't know that to be the case or not, but that's one of the parts of the other video of the movie where Jesus is actually holding onto the cross. I could imagine that. Now, we don't know that to be the case. Obviously, when you do a movie, there's gonna be some creative licensing that's gonna take place, but that happened in the movie. And I can see that. And from this passage, he wanted to do so. Remember, when Jesus got here, even as a boy, he said, did you not know that I would be about my father's business? Did you not know that? Now, the Bible also tells us this, that we read, matter of fact, let's read it again. Let's read it again, Philippians 2.8. He said that he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death of the cross. Now, he knew what he was coming for. He knew what he was coming for, and he makes a statement. He does it voluntarily because he says in John 10, 18, he says, no one takes my life away from me, but I lay it down on my own initiative. So I'm gonna take, I lay it down.  Which also may speak to, we know this, when he was risen, we know for a fact at that point in time, there was no forsaken in him at that point in time. He was not forsaken by the father. Again, we don't know how long. We don't know how long. But then we go back to the passages. We look at chapter five, verse 17 of Matthew. He makes a statement. He makes a statement. He says, do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. So he's coming to fulfill something. Somebody said, wouldn't it be for three hours? Well, I don't know. Don't, we don't know. Have no idea. So he says, his reason for coming to this, and Matt, this is in chapter five. This is early on. I came to do what? To fulfill the law. What does the law require in being fulfilled? That there must be this, well, two things. Yes, two things, two things. One, there's gotta be this pronouncement of all sin on Jesus. Remember in the atonement, the scapegoat is moving, and the scapegoat has to have all the sins placed on his head and sent into the wilderness. We don't know how far, where, or what happened. But I would say this. I would not want to be of all the sheep on the planet, the two that I would not want to be with the scapegoat or the sacrificial offering. Don't know what happened to him. But, because he's literally bearing all of the sin. Well, Jesus is going to do the same thing. Well, what is God going to do to sin? He pours out his wrath on sin. That part is understood. So I don't know if, and I'm just in my mind just wondering, is he even maybe even intensifying it? Don't know, I do not know. But I do know this though. The next portion that Jesus has also understood about this atonement is that the shedding of blood is required. The pouring out of the blood must be required and then God accepts the sacrifice. God accepts the sacrifice. Now, Jesus knows it, which is why he says why he came to fulfill the law. Now, he says also this, because I want to look at, make sure that we understand why Jesus came, that he also knew, because I don't want to leave here thinking, I want anyone thinking that Jesus was afraid, Jesus was scared, Jesus was just unsure. No, he knew. As a matter of fact, he says in Mark 10, 45, he says, for even the son of man, and this is him saying, telling to his disciples what's going to happen, he says, for even the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom. He also makes a statement in Luke 18. As a matter of fact, I want to put this up as well. He says, then he took the 12 aside to his disciples and said to them, behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and all things which are written through the prophets about the son of man will be accomplished. All of those things, we're gonna go back and look at what one of the prophets said about him. All of those things will be accomplished. And I don't know if they were well versed on what the prophet that says is gonna happen but with the son of man, but he says, those things, all of those things will be accomplished. He says, for he will be handed over to the Gentiles. That's an insult, by the way, to be handed over to the Gentiles because we as Jews, we don't like the Gentiles and vice versa. And he will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon. Now, first of all, the mock part, okay, but the mistreated part, Jesus, you really undersold this mistreated part. They mistreated, mistreated. Wow, that's a light way of putting it, huh? To be mistreated and spit upon. And after they have scourged him, after any you ever been scourged, I'm pretty sure you have not.  And look what he says, on the third day, he will rise again. But the disciples understood none of these things and the many of this statement was hidden from them and they did not comprehend the things that were said. What's the point of having the words if you're not gonna read them? What's the point of having, of course, in our case, having the Bible if you're not gonna read it?  One of my big pet peeves is the fact that we have the book and we don't read it. One of my big pet peeves is that we will have the story, we'll have what's told, what's laid out and we'll still lean onto our own understanding. Well, I think this, I think that, but it literally says this. One of my greatest frustrations, I don't mean frustration to the point where if I had hair, I pulled my hair out. But when I read comments and folks will say, after having gone through a Bible study and looked at the scriptures, pulled them out, well, I disagree. Why do you disagree? Well, I just think I feel this way. Well, or obviously we have this issue when we deal with a lot of folks who are talking about being demon-possessing so forth. You're demon-possessed, I'm not.  I'm literally giving you the scripture. It is so frustrating to have the Bible that you can read and glean from and don't use it. You have these things and you don't use it. Do you know one of the greatest regrets in prison is thinking about the things that you could have done but didn't do? Do you know what's gonna be one of the greatest regrets? If not, matter of fact, not if not, the greatest regret in hell that you could have and you did not. You could have and you did not. That's a problem.  That's gonna be the big issue. Just like we're sitting around in prison looking at each other, you know what, you really had to be here. You brought yourself here. You could have not stole. You could have not molested that child.  You could have not embezzled. You could have not lied. You could have not done all those things. We know it can be done because most people in society didn't come to prison so we know it can be done. And then we know it could be done that you could have placed your faith in Christ but you didn't. Now, truth be told, you all know where I stand that any and everybody could just that nobody will and so what does God do that He does something which is to our heart.  I could not. You made me this way. Uh-uh, no, no, no. God did not create you in a way. I don't think that He created you in a way and told you to do something that was impossible. Because again, we see people in the Bible who have believed but then you know what? Their heart was really on something else. Their heart was really more for something. No, not Calvinist, I'm not a Calvinist but their heart was really focused on something else. You know what, if it wasn't for the fact of all these good looking women out here, honey, I'd be faithful to you. I love you, baby, but did you see what she was wearing? Same thing with a woman. Sweetheart, I would love to be the wife that you want me to be but I just can't.  That's how we are. That's what God came for. That's why He died. That's why the Lord died on the cross for that. That's why He made Himself a sacrifice.  Wait till the human beings have to go through it. Wait till the people who are not God in flesh have to go through it. What do you think Jesus' mind was on? What do you think He was focused on? What do you think was in His mind? What He's always said in His mind? Hell, I don't want you to be held. This is why I'm gonna do it.  For it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on the tree. Well, He got up and hung on the tree for us. He became this curse for us. Are you with me? And so the point that He came for is so that we wouldn't have to deal with hell. We wouldn't have to go through it. Isn't that sad when someone can make provisions whereby you don't have to suffer and you choose to suffer anyway? And you're gonna complain about the suffering. You're gonna complain about the suffering anyway. But look at us. We'll go through it anyway. We'll go through it anyway because that's just who we are. And Jesus tells us that we don't have... He wants to keep us going from a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth where the worm never dies. Was Jesus thinking of hell? Sure He was. Without question, He was thinking of hell. Without question. And He's thought about it so much so that He wanted, He made it so that we don't have to go. The, listen, the easiest win ever. The easiest win ever. Could you imagine? I thought about this before. Could you imagine playing in a basketball game? I saw a game one time. This was, I can't remember the guy's name. I can't remember the guy's name. But this guy was playing with Michael Jordan. Playing with Michael Jordan, games tight. I think the Bulls were down by one or tired or something like that. Maybe down by two. You know what he did? This guy's name is Mud. We don't even know who, I can't remember the guy's name. He decided to take the last shot. This guy decided to take the last shot. What do you think happened to him? Tell you what, sir. I think we're going in a different direction. You're no longer part of our plans. Listen, all you had to do was give the ball to Michael Jordan. Give the ball to Michael Jordan. That's all you got to do. I'll tell you what, give the ball to Mike and the rest of y'all move out of the way. Well, even more so, give the ball to Jesus. It's the easiest layup in the history of the world. Give it to him. No one's Steve Kerr. Give it to him. Give it to, all you got to do is place your faith in him. That's it. All the heavy lifting is done. He makes this statement. He says, in Mark 9.47, if your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out.  So, whatever's causing you to go that way instead of go that way, this way is where Christ is, whatever's causing that. If it is, now, he's speaking figuratively, but he's also speaking literally.  If your job is what's causing you, if there's something that's holding you back, if it's your cell phone, if it's the porn on your cell phone, or if it's the constant chatter on Facebook and Snapchat and MySpace and Instagram and whatever else they got up there, cut it out. Get rid of it. Lay aside every weight and sin that can easily ensnare you.  It's like driving with a break on. But the easiest thing that you can do is just get on the bus. The easiest thing that you can do is just place your faith in him. Because the result of not doing so, so you might laugh at me because I said, MySpace, yeah, MySpace, we're gonna bring that back. The easiest thing that you can do is place your, but you know what it is, and we can tell people that, you know, I think you think that you're gonna miss something and you're not, but, and they all know that, yeah, I know I'm not gonna miss it, but I love it so much. I love it so much so. I love it so much so that, it's just that I'm just not ready. Maybe if I'm getting ready to get hit by a truck, then right before the truck strikes me, I'll place my faith in Christ, maybe. It's not gonna happen.  And so therefore, you can't be with him. You can't be with him.  He does not want you to find yourself in hell. He knows exactly what's going to happen. How do I know? Because who do you think is gonna sit before you in judgment? Him.  The look on his face, I literally fix it for you. I made it so that you wouldn't have to go there. Yeah, what was his focus? Hell, let's look and see what he knew that he was going to suffer. In Isaiah 33, now obviously we know because we've covered this before, that the Jews as a nation, when they look at this, they'll be looking back. But we can look at this for ourselves and see these are the things that happened. In verse three says, he was despised and forsaken. There's that word again, forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And like the one from whom men hide their face, he was despised and we did not esteem him. Didn't think, we didn't think much of him. Surely our griefs, he himself bore. He bore our griefs, he bore that. And our sorrows he carried. Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken. Smitten of God, smitten of, wait a minute, smitten of God. So God is the one, yes, God is the one that's doing this. Smitten of God and afflicted, but he was pierced through for our transgressions. For our trend, he was crushed for our sins, for our knickly, the chastisement, for our well-being of or of our peace fell upon him. And by his scourging, by his strife, by his scourging, we are healed.  Look what he says. Each of us has turned to his own way, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him. He was oppressed, he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth, like a lamb that has led to the slaughter and like a sheep that has sidelined before its shears. So he did not open his mouth. Well, he knew what he was going for.   You, me, us not being there, the people that would be there, the fact that he made propitiation and he made a payment for those people. Think about that. I paid the debt for you. It was paid for you, you didn't accept it. You didn't trust it. You didn't want it. Go to the restaurant, I pay your bill. Nevermind, I'll pay it myself. Oh, I think this is a trick. I don't think he paid it for me. In the garden, in the garden. So let's go back to the original. In the garden, he makes a statement. He makes a statement. Father, if you have planned, if you have made it so, if you wanted to be, if you have willed us to be, remove this cup, the disciples in their foolishness wanted to remember when James and John and their mother almost got them in trouble. We wanna sit on your right and on your left side.  Can you bear the cup that I'm about to drink? No, you're not. Now I'm gonna give you something later. Now you're gonna suffer. But it says, Father, if it's been planned this way, if it's been willed this way, remove this cup. But this is about your, not my will, but your will be done. I have humbled myself for just this reason. And then so when he's on the cross and he says, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?  Unfortunately, most will.  There are gonna be a lot of people that we love that are going to hell. And all we gotta do now, it's never in our court. We can't cause anyone to come to Christ, but we can at least share with someone what he's done. Because we also, we too, also ought to have our mind while we're heavenly minded. We too, also ought to be thankful for one, the death, the hell that we've escaped. But also remember that everyone else has not escaped that. And what it's gonna require is for them to hear the word. If you do not confess that Jesus is Lord, you shall not be saved. And how are they gonna confess that? On him, they have not heard. And how they don't believe on the person they've not heard. Well, the only one they're gonna hear is with a preacher. You go preach. You also keep in mind, keep an eye out, keep a thought about hell. Sounds, sounds odd, right? Sounds weird for someone to say, if we need to be thinking about hell, not for yourself. But Paul says, because of the terror of the Lord, what do we do? We warn people. We persuade people because of the terror of the Lord. He has entrusted us that same ministry in 2 Corinthians 5, 17, 18, 19. While he was in Christ, reconciling the world, now he's given us the same ministry of reconciliation through work.  Let someone know. It doesn't take a whole lot. It doesn't have to be real clever. You don't have to be the greatest orator ever, but just let them know what he's done for you.  Do just what Jesus did now. He didn't, you don't have to suffer in that regard, which makes it easier. It's almost as though we can do the job of Jesus without having as much skin in the game. We don't have to suffer like he suffered. Pretty easy, huh? Pretty easy, isn't it? So I say, why don't we on this Easter season and this resurrection Sunday, we're gonna think about how good and great the Lord is and we're told, let the redeem of the Lord say, so why don't we say so to somebody else and keep them from having to go to hell? Amen.