Throwing the Beans Out With the Bathwater

Things were ok until rumors started going around that eating fat made you fat.

Suddenly America exploded (blew up?). The experts had told us to eat lots of bread and fat-free sugar instead. Of course, most literate people or people with half an ear now know that all that bread and pasta and fat-free sugar-laden snacks make you fat, not fat. (One exception is Subway restaurants, who still tout "low fat! low fat!" sandwiches with massive amounts of bread.)

We followed their advice. We also followed other advice: First eating eggs and other cholesterol-filled foods caused high cholesterol levels; now they're suggesting that eating cholesterol doesn't raise blood cholesterol levels but rather almost the opposite. Saturated fat used to be horrible for you, now it's noted that it's necessary to absorb calcium and even keep your colon healthy. Living enzymes in raw food is one of the latest promotions, but other studies show that the only reason raw food has lots of living enzymes is that raw food is harder for the body to digest and therefore requires more enzymes. Eight glasses of water were necessary because our thirst indicators are unreliable, then some found people didn't need so much after all (although I think I may be finally convinced I need more than I do drink) and we were shown how people actually died from drinking too much water. (You can find anything online, even that water and the usually inoffensive honey are dangerous.)

Now whole grains are bad in that the phytic acids they contain deplete the body of minerals; but wait, only improperly processed whole-grains (like we eat out here in the West). Basically, it boils down to this: Americans have no clue how to eat anymore. How has it gotten to be so difficult to do something as basic as eating?!?

Oh, is that why...?

I once wrote:

I am often leery of writing anything of what might be called substance because I am so often wrong. I'll read a book and murmur, "Oh....yes...yes..." then read a opposing review on the book and realize, "Oh...yes...I missed that. Ah, indeed!” It’s not just the backlash and derision I’m scared of -- although that itself is certainly cause for hesitancy -- but of being wrong. And by that I don't mean just the possibility of misleading people, but being wrong in and of itself. Integrity involves wanting to do right because it is right; not to be superior, not to prove a point, but because right is right.

Today I saw:

A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure. They spend considerable time second-guessing themselves. The open-endedness (from Perceiving) conjoined with the need for competence (NT) is expressed in a sense that one's conclusion may well be met by an equally plausible alternative solution, and that, after all, one may very well have overlooked some critical bit of data. An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition.

While I almost always score as an INFJ on those types of quizzes, and much of an INTP's description is totally unlike me, my written paragraph is essentially a paraphrase of the latter description paragraph. I thought it was a matter of integrity and now I find it's a matter of type (and a previously unknown type, or half-type, at that). Or is it? Did I score that way because of my aims toward integrity?

The application of such goes much deeper than just the "I'm like this" aspect, but I need to wrestle with these thoughts more before articulating them. I guess such wrestling is a lifelong doom.

______________________________________

p.s. The fact that it took me a good portion of an hour to get that last paragraph right is a telling sign. Or is it just that I'm a writer who needs to get her words just right...?

Still Quoting

Jesus didn't ask, "Peter, do you know me," or "Peter, are you serving me," or even, "Peter, do you honor me?" He simply asked, "Peter, do you love me?"

--Chip Kirk (from John 21:15-19)

What's in Your Heart?

John Eldredge, in what I think was his book "Wild at Heart", says that Christians have had Jeremiah 17:9 pounded into them too much. He says, and I'm quoting from memory so it's not verbatim, that once you become a Christian and are given new life, Christ gives you a new heart as well. Okay, we know that, but he goes on to say, "your heart is good". I have been pondering this ever since. Is the heart still desperately wicked (certainly I've been been told-preached that), or can we actually trust it sometimes? Thoughts?

"Don't Tell Me How to Vote"

James Dobson said, back around March, that he didn’t think he’d be voting for Fred Thompson for president because he didn’t think he was a Christian. That’s fine, sir, that’s your prerogative, though I can’t say I think much of your litmus test. I can think of lots of Christians I wouldn’t vote for president with me as the forerunner. I’d make a lousy president, and don’t think being a Christian automatically makes a person presidential material.

The problem with Dobson’s statement, though, and any statements supporting his or someone's candidate of choice, is that many, many Christians will hear them and bleat, and stampede down to the voting booth to vote for whomever that person does condone. I can remember a telling example.

We belonged to a non-denominational church at the time and our Bible study group had met for something other than Bible study; I can’t remember what. What I vividly remember is one lady passing out material and talking about the candidates she assumed -- not in so many words but somehow the implication was there -- everyone there would be voting for.

She was stopped in mid-endorsement by another woman saying, “Don’t tell me who to vote for.” There was quiet as the first lady, mouth still open, looked at her. The second lady said, “By all means, give me your material, discuss the issues, but leave it there. Let me decide. Just don’t (with a slight pause between each word) tell   me   who   to   vote   for."

Bravo!! I wish everyone were so inclined to think for themselves. I also wish that people would realize that this country is not going to be turned around by politics. As A. W. Tozer said:

“One thing must be kept in mind: We Christians are Christians first and everything else after that. Our first allegiance is to the kingdom of God. Our citizenship is in heaven. We are grateful for political freedom. We thank God for democracy as a way of life. But we never forget that we are sons of God and citizens of another city whose builder and maker is God. For this reason, we must not identify the gospel with any political system or make Christianity to be synonymous with any form of government, however noble. Christ stands alone, above and outside of every ideology devised by man. He does not join any of our parties or take sides with any of our great men except as they may come over on His side and try to follow Him in righteousness and true holiness. Then He is for them, but only as individuals, never as leaders of some political faction. The true Christian will be loyal to his country and obedient to those in authority, but he will never fall into the error of confusing his own national culture with Christianity. Christianity is bigger than any country, loftier than any civilization, broader than any human ideology.”

Thanks to this blog for the quote.

Smile, Job!

I found out a long time ago that my normal, resting face looks mad to other people. It seems I either look mad a great deal of the time or else people mistake intensity for anger. Whatever the case, people are always telling me to “smile!” Some add things like, “Cheer up! It’s not that bad!”

How do they know?

Most of the time it isn’t, but what if someone close to me had just died, I had also just lost all my money, and my kids were rebelling and in jail? “Smile!” Did Jeremiah smile “enough“? If Job didn’t have boils all over him, showing things to be not quite normal, would people have told him, “Smile! It’s not so bad. . .”

My daughter-in-law got quite endearingly indignant when I told her about the different situations in which I was ordered to smile. She said, “You smile a lot!” I do, around my family. One can’t help but laugh when one has a husband like mine -- he is a most original wit.

But on behalf of all those intense or serious people mistaken for grumps, may I beg you, next time you see one, to please not command a smile? Maybe just smile at them instead.

When I read

Tired of my haphazard approach to Bible reading, I decided a while ago that I wanted to be more systematic about it. I would read it straight through, then straight through, then straight through with a chronological one, then kept wanting to and doing the same again.

Now on my ? time through, one main thought has surfaced; how much time is spent in the Old Testament. One spends a lot more time with the...chastening? sterner? thundering? side of God.

I suspect there's a reason for this, thought I don't know what it is yet (if, indeed, there is only one). As a balance, maybe? only there's so much more O.T. than New. It really lasts. You get those prophets one right after another (this is where a chronological one makes for a real change of perspective), laments, strange stories (I mean, no one walks around naked for three years in the N.T. except for the Gerasene demoniac (who's not upheld as worthy of emulation), not that I can remember offhand, anyway). So...

I must muse on this more.