My current class in Johannine Literature has been a nice romp through much of the New Testament. These books have always been a mystery to me—due mostly to lack of reading them. But even with reading them, its good to have a guide. After reading Revelation for the first time, I put the Bible down and probably couldn't tell you a single thing that happened. Lampstands and angels and horses were everywhere, but I couldn't make heads or tails of them. I got that John was on Patmos, but then once you queue the acid sequence, the plot sort of . . . Well, I'm not sure if there is a plot. Ok, Round 2 with a commentary made a big difference!
The Synoptics and Paul tend to get a lot of attention, but the Johannine “school” has a significant portion in the canon—The Gospel of John, 3 “letters” of John, and the Book of Revelation. Not a bad showing. Let's hear it for John! A rich literary bunch there. So we're studying epistolary forms, apocalyptic literature, Greek rhetoric, not to mention that crazy gospel genre. (Did ya'll know that its no longer cool to assume that the Gospel of John was written way late? Its now theorized to be pretty-darn historically reliable!)
Its not just a matter of quantity, either. Where else do you get, “God is love” ? (1 John 4:8). Let’s give some more context: “Everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (4:7). *Sigh* What more do you need? I’ll build a theology off of that! I’m willing to ignore the fact that 1 John puts additional stipulations in other portions of the book if you are.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
The man who commanded the Enola Gay, which dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan, died today. He had "no regrets". The BBC link below claims there were 140,000 instantaneous deaths, with more that came in the days, weeks, months, and years afterwards. "In a 1975 interview he said: "I sleep clearly every night."" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7073441.stm
Now look at this related but not related story:
Much has been said lately about the US's use of waterboarding as a method of torture of prisoners held at Guantanamo and other places.
"Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice . . "Most people cannot stand to watch a high-intensity, kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3115549.ece
I hold up these two situations together because I believe they shed light on a very important aspect of human nature. In one situation, a man feels little regret and loses no sleep over the deaths of tens of thousands. In another, people become morally undone at the sight of a single human being tortured. Now, we can argue whether or not any of this is justifiable. I'd say its not, but that's not the point I want to argue here. I would imagine in both cases there are people who feel they can justify their actions--the deaths of some in order to save the lives of many more. Yet, in one case the pilot loses no sleep and in another case the witnesses and perpetrators have to wrestle to their core of their being with what they are seeing and doing.
This--I believe--is one of the most critical issues of our time. We live in a world where technology can make us far removed from the consequences of our actions. If we see suffering and bloodshed, often it strikes our very humanity and we empathaize. But if tens of thousands of people are simply erased off a map, its a mere cognitive exercise. We can't comprehend the deaths of tens of thousands. We can comprehend the deaths of individuals. As humans, we have a difficult time putting our minds and our hearts together.
Out of sight, out of mind. Watch the torture of a single human being? Lifetime of moral regret. Blow up 140,000 people? No problem if you don't see them. We can still hurt a hell of a lot of people. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean its not happening, but somewhere in the depths of our spirits I don't know if we really believe without seeing, like its not real. We need to put our hands in the nail holes and the pierced side to really know that it is real, just like the doubting Apostle Thomas. Without that, maybe it tugs on us, maybe it doesn't. But watch it up close and it haunts us forever.
I've heard it said that this is a vital function of the news media--to bring the actions abroad home. A single photograph make a war real that would otherwise just be numbers and lines on a map.
Now look at this related but not related story:
Much has been said lately about the US's use of waterboarding as a method of torture of prisoners held at Guantanamo and other places.
"Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice . . "Most people cannot stand to watch a high-intensity, kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3115549.ece
I hold up these two situations together because I believe they shed light on a very important aspect of human nature. In one situation, a man feels little regret and loses no sleep over the deaths of tens of thousands. In another, people become morally undone at the sight of a single human being tortured. Now, we can argue whether or not any of this is justifiable. I'd say its not, but that's not the point I want to argue here. I would imagine in both cases there are people who feel they can justify their actions--the deaths of some in order to save the lives of many more. Yet, in one case the pilot loses no sleep and in another case the witnesses and perpetrators have to wrestle to their core of their being with what they are seeing and doing.
This--I believe--is one of the most critical issues of our time. We live in a world where technology can make us far removed from the consequences of our actions. If we see suffering and bloodshed, often it strikes our very humanity and we empathaize. But if tens of thousands of people are simply erased off a map, its a mere cognitive exercise. We can't comprehend the deaths of tens of thousands. We can comprehend the deaths of individuals. As humans, we have a difficult time putting our minds and our hearts together.
Out of sight, out of mind. Watch the torture of a single human being? Lifetime of moral regret. Blow up 140,000 people? No problem if you don't see them. We can still hurt a hell of a lot of people. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean its not happening, but somewhere in the depths of our spirits I don't know if we really believe without seeing, like its not real. We need to put our hands in the nail holes and the pierced side to really know that it is real, just like the doubting Apostle Thomas. Without that, maybe it tugs on us, maybe it doesn't. But watch it up close and it haunts us forever.
I've heard it said that this is a vital function of the news media--to bring the actions abroad home. A single photograph make a war real that would otherwise just be numbers and lines on a map.
I Don't Like Fruit. That Much.
I could go literally years without eating a piece of fruit, and have. (Not counting 100% fruit juice, which I do consume a lot of).
So, what's a guy to do?
Someone once told me, "Frank, if you don't eat fruit, you'll get cancer." Nutritionally speaking, its right up there at the top of the list. But my body just has a distate for it. I really have to make an effort to eat it. Its almost too strong, or something. When I do eat it, I sometimes enjoy it halfway decent, and do feel better. But I'd rather stop at small quantities. Without making a conscious effort, I can go months without it and its completely off the radar.
Now with vegetables, its a whole nother story. I can inhale vast bushels of veggies, particularly cooked. Stews, soups, stir fries, you name it. Mix it all together, throw some sauce on and cook it up!
So I'm left at a quandry. Its hard to eat fruit and in general hard to eat raw things. Just not my body's preference. Yet, those are important--dare I say, critical--to good nutrition. Do I listen to my body and feed it what it wants, knowing that if my body doesn't want it that might be an important sign? Or do I pay heed to the experts and give myself something even though I just don't want to eat?
I've decided to eat fruit. I take a piece early in the morning. Something fruity, something raw. Get it out of the way. Its the closest thing I have to breakfast, which is another gaping hole in my otherwise good nutrition. So if you've been counting, I'm killing 3 birds with one stone. I try to eat it before leaving for work, so that way I can throw it in the compost bin and not have to keep it in a container at work and bring the core home). At the very least maybe 3 servings a week.
So, what's a guy to do?
Someone once told me, "Frank, if you don't eat fruit, you'll get cancer." Nutritionally speaking, its right up there at the top of the list. But my body just has a distate for it. I really have to make an effort to eat it. Its almost too strong, or something. When I do eat it, I sometimes enjoy it halfway decent, and do feel better. But I'd rather stop at small quantities. Without making a conscious effort, I can go months without it and its completely off the radar.
Now with vegetables, its a whole nother story. I can inhale vast bushels of veggies, particularly cooked. Stews, soups, stir fries, you name it. Mix it all together, throw some sauce on and cook it up!
So I'm left at a quandry. Its hard to eat fruit and in general hard to eat raw things. Just not my body's preference. Yet, those are important--dare I say, critical--to good nutrition. Do I listen to my body and feed it what it wants, knowing that if my body doesn't want it that might be an important sign? Or do I pay heed to the experts and give myself something even though I just don't want to eat?
I've decided to eat fruit. I take a piece early in the morning. Something fruity, something raw. Get it out of the way. Its the closest thing I have to breakfast, which is another gaping hole in my otherwise good nutrition. So if you've been counting, I'm killing 3 birds with one stone. I try to eat it before leaving for work, so that way I can throw it in the compost bin and not have to keep it in a container at work and bring the core home). At the very least maybe 3 servings a week.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Holy Cow.
It is becoming a common expression with those around me lately, but BEEF is seriously WHAT'S FOR DINNER for as long as the eye can foresee. I picked up my order of a 1/2 cow today! All 270 lbs! Its 100% grass-fed, organically-raised cow from a farm in southern Ohio. They supply the local co-op and appear at a farm market right up the road from me.
Check 'em out, http://www.ravenrocks.org/ More stuff going on there than just beef, including some outstanding photos.
I ate their meat when I was going through cancer radiation therapy and had to be on a restricted diet (no iodine residue, which is common in some meat-processing facilities). It did me good then, I expect it'll do me good now.
The health and environmental benefits of grass-fed meat is a very, very long list, and I encourage anyone to check it out: http://www.eatwild.com/ I really believe that eating meat raised in this manner is a good alternative to being a vegetarian, especially those like me who don't respond well to a vegetarian diet (I'd tried).
[I'd challenge vegetarians out there to really look at where their food is coming from and how its produced, because they may not be having quite as good of an environmental impact that they think (although there is no question that eating a conventionally raised vegetarian diet is better than eating factory farm animal products, but I think organically raised meats, eggs and dairy would give any vegetarian a run for their money in terms of environmental responsibility. I'll take my grass-fed meat, raised locally and organically to your polluted and plantation-grown bananas shipped from 3,000 miles away anyday.)]
Check 'em out, http://www.ravenrocks.org/ More stuff going on there than just beef, including some outstanding photos.
I ate their meat when I was going through cancer radiation therapy and had to be on a restricted diet (no iodine residue, which is common in some meat-processing facilities). It did me good then, I expect it'll do me good now.
The health and environmental benefits of grass-fed meat is a very, very long list, and I encourage anyone to check it out: http://www.eatwild.com/ I really believe that eating meat raised in this manner is a good alternative to being a vegetarian, especially those like me who don't respond well to a vegetarian diet (I'd tried).
[I'd challenge vegetarians out there to really look at where their food is coming from and how its produced, because they may not be having quite as good of an environmental impact that they think (although there is no question that eating a conventionally raised vegetarian diet is better than eating factory farm animal products, but I think organically raised meats, eggs and dairy would give any vegetarian a run for their money in terms of environmental responsibility. I'll take my grass-fed meat, raised locally and organically to your polluted and plantation-grown bananas shipped from 3,000 miles away anyday.)]
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Eat Cheap Well
One of the blessings of our society is that food is readily available and actually pretty cheap--if you know what you are doing (most Americans do not). The staples of diet cost very little, yet many of us still have large food budgets. A 10lb bag of potatoes, a bag of dried beans, a dozen eggs and some bulk grains or flour could feed you well and good less than a couple dollars a day. Make sure you have some spices, some butter and milk and some oil to cook with and you're all set! Then all you need to worry about is filling that out with choice fruits, veggies and meats.
This is a bit of an extreme example, becuase your diet does not need to be so limited. But its good to start with a foundation and to understand where your money really goes. You primary sources of energy and nutrition can be shockingly cheap. You money goes to condiments, to packaged foods, to junk food, to restaurants, and to waste. Fruit and meat are expensive, but much less expensive if you cut out junk food and ready-made items. Look in your frozen food section--pound-for-pound, what are you paying? Then compare what you pay for fruit or meat per pound. You could eat steak every night without increasing your budget just by cutting out Stouffer's meals and trips to the convenience store.
Some people regularly spent $5/day at a convenient store--morning coffee and a bag of chips or pie. That's a $150/month habit. Others I know eat out every day at work for lunch. That's about $100-200/month just for work days.
While you're at it, just buy organic. I eat exceptionally well--high quality meats and organic foods make up a significant portion of my diet, yet my food budget is probably less than yours. The reason? I buy whole foods (minimally processed) and eat rarely in restaurants. I throw out very little. The nutritional quality of what I eat is also outstanding. The people that cry over a half gallon of organic orange juice costing $4.50 are the same ones who spend the same amount on a single glass of beer at a bar. I can make you a delicious and nutritious meal of organic, grass-fed hamburger on a whole grain bun, skin-on steamed potatoes and organic juice for less than the price of a happy meal at your favorite fast food joint.
If a dozen eggs costs $1.99, then that means that a 2-egg meal costs you 33 cents. I've seen onions and potatoes on sale for $0.99/lb. I can get bulk organic grains between $0.79-1.29/lb--the same price as generic bleached white pasta. At the local farmers market, I buy a frozen whole chicken for about $8 (gizzards and all) and throw it in a large pot for soup which feeds me and half of my friends for a week. A loaf of bread can now cost several dollars, but you can still bake your own for some cents. If you're really adventurous, go to a local farmer and buy a 1/2 pig or 1/4 cow and store it in your freezer. You may be getting top-of-the-line quality meats but paying moderately.
A good strategy is to bake your own bread and cook a large amount of food once a week. I usually do it on the weekends. While I do love cooking, I don't have to be slaving in the kichen several hours a day if I don't want to. You can load up your bread machine and crockpot one morning, come back several hours later and you have food for a week. Store extras in your freezer so you don't have to eat the same thing every day.
I mentioned throwing food away. Remember, its money. If you bought chicken on a super half-price sale for $2/lb, but ended up throwing half of it it away because you didn't manage it well and some of it spoiled and the rest you threw away for whatever reason, then you actually paid $4/lb for what you acutally ate.
So what are people doing wrong? Let's break it down:
1. They eat at restaurants, and not just as a social event but just to eat
2. They throw food away
3. They buy a lot of pre-packaged foods and go overboard on sauces and extras. The "basics" are extremely cheap
If you manage those 3 areas, you can eat an outrageously good diet full of very diverse and healthy, organic foods, and still come out a winner budget-wise than your peers. Let me also suggest here that a lot of people really do take advantage of sales and farmers markets and other ways of buying good food cheaply. But they lose a lot of that savings (maybe all of it) on bad restaurant decisions, mis-management of time (ie not packing a lunch) or inconsistency. People allow themselves to splurge and because they know they are saving money the rest of the time. The problem is that in the end they may be squandering it all. I believe the best bang for your buck is to have a consistent strategy that you can get the food you want without falling into these traps.
This is a bit of an extreme example, becuase your diet does not need to be so limited. But its good to start with a foundation and to understand where your money really goes. You primary sources of energy and nutrition can be shockingly cheap. You money goes to condiments, to packaged foods, to junk food, to restaurants, and to waste. Fruit and meat are expensive, but much less expensive if you cut out junk food and ready-made items. Look in your frozen food section--pound-for-pound, what are you paying? Then compare what you pay for fruit or meat per pound. You could eat steak every night without increasing your budget just by cutting out Stouffer's meals and trips to the convenience store.
Some people regularly spent $5/day at a convenient store--morning coffee and a bag of chips or pie. That's a $150/month habit. Others I know eat out every day at work for lunch. That's about $100-200/month just for work days.
While you're at it, just buy organic. I eat exceptionally well--high quality meats and organic foods make up a significant portion of my diet, yet my food budget is probably less than yours. The reason? I buy whole foods (minimally processed) and eat rarely in restaurants. I throw out very little. The nutritional quality of what I eat is also outstanding. The people that cry over a half gallon of organic orange juice costing $4.50 are the same ones who spend the same amount on a single glass of beer at a bar. I can make you a delicious and nutritious meal of organic, grass-fed hamburger on a whole grain bun, skin-on steamed potatoes and organic juice for less than the price of a happy meal at your favorite fast food joint.
If a dozen eggs costs $1.99, then that means that a 2-egg meal costs you 33 cents. I've seen onions and potatoes on sale for $0.99/lb. I can get bulk organic grains between $0.79-1.29/lb--the same price as generic bleached white pasta. At the local farmers market, I buy a frozen whole chicken for about $8 (gizzards and all) and throw it in a large pot for soup which feeds me and half of my friends for a week. A loaf of bread can now cost several dollars, but you can still bake your own for some cents. If you're really adventurous, go to a local farmer and buy a 1/2 pig or 1/4 cow and store it in your freezer. You may be getting top-of-the-line quality meats but paying moderately.
A good strategy is to bake your own bread and cook a large amount of food once a week. I usually do it on the weekends. While I do love cooking, I don't have to be slaving in the kichen several hours a day if I don't want to. You can load up your bread machine and crockpot one morning, come back several hours later and you have food for a week. Store extras in your freezer so you don't have to eat the same thing every day.
I mentioned throwing food away. Remember, its money. If you bought chicken on a super half-price sale for $2/lb, but ended up throwing half of it it away because you didn't manage it well and some of it spoiled and the rest you threw away for whatever reason, then you actually paid $4/lb for what you acutally ate.
So what are people doing wrong? Let's break it down:
1. They eat at restaurants, and not just as a social event but just to eat
2. They throw food away
3. They buy a lot of pre-packaged foods and go overboard on sauces and extras. The "basics" are extremely cheap
If you manage those 3 areas, you can eat an outrageously good diet full of very diverse and healthy, organic foods, and still come out a winner budget-wise than your peers. Let me also suggest here that a lot of people really do take advantage of sales and farmers markets and other ways of buying good food cheaply. But they lose a lot of that savings (maybe all of it) on bad restaurant decisions, mis-management of time (ie not packing a lunch) or inconsistency. People allow themselves to splurge and because they know they are saving money the rest of the time. The problem is that in the end they may be squandering it all. I believe the best bang for your buck is to have a consistent strategy that you can get the food you want without falling into these traps.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Do Hang Me Out To Dry
I decided to stop washing my clothes so much. I had gotten in the habit of just throwing items in the hamper. Questionable item? Toss it. Change shirts halfway through the day? Toss it. I'm sorry but a 'day at the office' does not necessitate a thorough wash with heavy duty laundry detergent. Socks and underwear--sure, they only get a single use. But my pants and shirts can be worn 2, 3 and even more times with impunity. I simply hang them up in my room, and the air over the course of a few days freshens them (not that they need it) for my next use. A little spritzing with an iron brings them back to life.
Its a total win-win-win-win. I'm spending less money on detergent and the laundramat. I'm conserving energy (when I do wash clothes, I am careful to hang them up to dry and avoid using dryers). I'm flushing less detergents into the environment (and using biodegradable ones). I am spending less time at the laundry machines and more time doing whatever else I'd prefer. The best part of it all is that I have experienced no loss of quality of my lifestyle whatsoever, only improvements.
I don't know why, but many of us are programmed to wash clothes obsessively. A single use for part of a day and the item gets tossed into the hamper. Its unnecessary and wasteful. We use much more detergent per load than necessary, and wash many more times than reason would dictate. And we never allow ourselves that nice feel of a pair of jeans that have loosened up after several days wear to really become part of your body, to live and breathe with you as a good companion, rather than the starched floor model we don't know and keep at a distance.
Its a total win-win-win-win. I'm spending less money on detergent and the laundramat. I'm conserving energy (when I do wash clothes, I am careful to hang them up to dry and avoid using dryers). I'm flushing less detergents into the environment (and using biodegradable ones). I am spending less time at the laundry machines and more time doing whatever else I'd prefer. The best part of it all is that I have experienced no loss of quality of my lifestyle whatsoever, only improvements.
I don't know why, but many of us are programmed to wash clothes obsessively. A single use for part of a day and the item gets tossed into the hamper. Its unnecessary and wasteful. We use much more detergent per load than necessary, and wash many more times than reason would dictate. And we never allow ourselves that nice feel of a pair of jeans that have loosened up after several days wear to really become part of your body, to live and breathe with you as a good companion, rather than the starched floor model we don't know and keep at a distance.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Pan Meal
I avoid using the microwave when I can. Its hard to think about what people did before microwaves, because we are so accustomed to them. How did people heat things at all back in the day? Maybe it was all cold pizza and chicken and baloney sandwiches in your lunch pail. I was too young to know.
I think there are few items that can't be successfully heated on the stovetop or toaster oven. It just takes some skill to do it right. But remember: the mushy, soggy microwave effect was something we all had to get used to, as well, and after a few years we all figured out ways to minimize the loss of quality with microwaves. Same is true for the stovetop.
Most things are cooked already (hence the term "leftovers"), so you don't want to overdo anything. So depending on the item, I often just put a pan on the stove, and toss in a small amoutn of either oilive oil or water. Sometimes I'll add a lid so that it steams nicely. The water or oil keeps it from burning and refreshes it.
Often, I'll mix items together to re-heat in a single pan, forming new concotions I've never tried before. That happened the other day. I had some kohlrabi. I choped up the thick stem part into little cubes, and tossed them into a thin layer of water in a pan. They started to boil. I then chopped up the kohlrabi greens and put them on top--they were essentially steamed, since very little of it was actually in the water itself. As they were cooking, I decided to re-heat some turkey burgers I made the night before. I figured I'd just throw the turkey burgers on top of the kohlrabi to warm them up, since the pan wa already hot. The result? I had a nice meal of kohlrabi greens and stems mixed in with turkey, and it was an amazing combination of flavors!
I can't point you to any research, but I've heard enough about microwaves to be cautious about using them. Jury's still out, but in the meantime I'm playing it safe. Why wait until something is proven wrong to change your ways?? It wasn't scientifically "proven" that smoking causes cancer for a while, too, but anyone with common sense could have told youthat smoking seems to be something to avoid until we find out for sure. I think food tastes better and feels more right coming off the stove. No radiation or altering of the chemicals in the food making them uneasy (or impossible) for humans to process, as some people say.
I think there are few items that can't be successfully heated on the stovetop or toaster oven. It just takes some skill to do it right. But remember: the mushy, soggy microwave effect was something we all had to get used to, as well, and after a few years we all figured out ways to minimize the loss of quality with microwaves. Same is true for the stovetop.
Most things are cooked already (hence the term "leftovers"), so you don't want to overdo anything. So depending on the item, I often just put a pan on the stove, and toss in a small amoutn of either oilive oil or water. Sometimes I'll add a lid so that it steams nicely. The water or oil keeps it from burning and refreshes it.
Often, I'll mix items together to re-heat in a single pan, forming new concotions I've never tried before. That happened the other day. I had some kohlrabi. I choped up the thick stem part into little cubes, and tossed them into a thin layer of water in a pan. They started to boil. I then chopped up the kohlrabi greens and put them on top--they were essentially steamed, since very little of it was actually in the water itself. As they were cooking, I decided to re-heat some turkey burgers I made the night before. I figured I'd just throw the turkey burgers on top of the kohlrabi to warm them up, since the pan wa already hot. The result? I had a nice meal of kohlrabi greens and stems mixed in with turkey, and it was an amazing combination of flavors!
I can't point you to any research, but I've heard enough about microwaves to be cautious about using them. Jury's still out, but in the meantime I'm playing it safe. Why wait until something is proven wrong to change your ways?? It wasn't scientifically "proven" that smoking causes cancer for a while, too, but anyone with common sense could have told youthat smoking seems to be something to avoid until we find out for sure. I think food tastes better and feels more right coming off the stove. No radiation or altering of the chemicals in the food making them uneasy (or impossible) for humans to process, as some people say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)