I just had a great time with my parents, my wife and kids celebrating Christmas. It's good to spend time with people I care about during this time of year. While I am still feeling the warmth of family fellowship, I thought I would share a thought about Christmas.
My parents have a ceramic nativity set on their hearth. We have a similar one in our house. These are not just decorations to me. They are reminders that I can see every day. They help me to explain to my children the true meaning of Christmas. We also have a plastic one that the kids can hold without fear of breaking. Thanks to my in-laws for that. These peaceful nativity scenes are really ceramic and plastic pointers to the battle for our souls.
Christmas displayed in a nativity set is a reminder that God is good. I think most of us understand that there is darkness that engulfs the world. The darkness is here, because mankind declared war on God from the very beginning of history (not just recently, as it sometimes feels). In spite of that, God offers the warmth of family fellowship with himself to everyone. His plan for redemption is active in the nativity. How so? When I look at a nativity scene, I am looking at a symbol of Almighty God becoming a child, a peace offering to people who don't want or deserve it. (I have to include that these same people later kill this child, but it's all according to God's plan.)
There is no better way to describe what I see in those nativity sets than in Paul's letter to Titus. It reads, "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us" (Titus 3:3-5a).
Merry Christmas.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Arsenic in Motts?
A couple nights ago I had dinner with a friend while our wives were shopping until they dropped. We were on baby-sitting duty. While at our friendly neighborhood Burger King, I finished up my two kids' meals with the usual Motts applesauce. Before they finished a gentleman approached. "Excuse me, sir. I couldn't help but notice that you are feeding your kids Motts applesauce. I recently found out that Motts contains over twice the FDA limit of arsenic. You can research it on the web. It's true! I just thought I should tell you." This good Samaritan was doing me a favor. He had some information he deemed important to the safety and well-being of my two pre-schoolers and did not withhold it. For his kindness I am very grateful.
In response to his concern I have done some research on the web. I have discovered some interesting arsenic information, which I will now share with you.
First, this gentleman was right. There is arsenic in Motts apple products. Apparently, the scare started a few months ago by none other than Dr. Oz, the popular TV doctor. Chicks dig him, but that's another story. Dr. Oz's findings can be found at http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/dr-oz-investigates-arsenic-apple-juice. Incidentally, Oz found that Motts was not the only juice containing arsenic, nor does it contain the highest levels of said element.
Interesting stuff, eh?
Second, and more to the point, does this mean I should steer clear of Motts applesauce for my kids? The FDA did a follow up study on this very question and found that there is NO apparent danger to the public related to arsenic levels in apple juice and by my assumption, apple sauce. This research can be read at http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm271394.htm.
There are plenty of opinions flying around the web on this subject. Perform a Google search on arsenic in apple juice and you will find plenty of material to feast upon. It should come as no surprise to you that you find many people choosing to boycott Motts. Some of them find it unacceptable that Motts would import apple concentrate from China, while others feel confirmed in their belief that all non-locally grown foods are suspect. Grow it yourself, they say.
For me, this issue is now closed. I will continue to allow my children and myself to consume Motts apple sauce. It tastes good. In fact it is better than the other brands I have tried. The FDA has promised on their own website that they are monitoring arsenic levels and have been for several years. Until they deem it necessary to take action on the issue, I see no reason to grow my own orchard.
In response to his concern I have done some research on the web. I have discovered some interesting arsenic information, which I will now share with you.
First, this gentleman was right. There is arsenic in Motts apple products. Apparently, the scare started a few months ago by none other than Dr. Oz, the popular TV doctor. Chicks dig him, but that's another story. Dr. Oz's findings can be found at http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/dr-oz-investigates-arsenic-apple-juice. Incidentally, Oz found that Motts was not the only juice containing arsenic, nor does it contain the highest levels of said element.
Interesting stuff, eh?
Second, and more to the point, does this mean I should steer clear of Motts applesauce for my kids? The FDA did a follow up study on this very question and found that there is NO apparent danger to the public related to arsenic levels in apple juice and by my assumption, apple sauce. This research can be read at http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm271394.htm.
There are plenty of opinions flying around the web on this subject. Perform a Google search on arsenic in apple juice and you will find plenty of material to feast upon. It should come as no surprise to you that you find many people choosing to boycott Motts. Some of them find it unacceptable that Motts would import apple concentrate from China, while others feel confirmed in their belief that all non-locally grown foods are suspect. Grow it yourself, they say.
For me, this issue is now closed. I will continue to allow my children and myself to consume Motts apple sauce. It tastes good. In fact it is better than the other brands I have tried. The FDA has promised on their own website that they are monitoring arsenic levels and have been for several years. Until they deem it necessary to take action on the issue, I see no reason to grow my own orchard.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Blood, Guts, Mel and Me
I just watched Apocalypto last night. It's a subtitled Mel Gibson movie about South American natives. It was slightly enjoyable, but overall I could have skipped it. The thing that struck me about the flick was that I started noticing the "Mel Gibson trend" in flim-making. Mel has an apparent obsession with violent death scenes.
In Braveheart, William Wallace leads the Scottish against the British in bloody battle scenes. It has been a while since I saw it, but I distinctly remember a soldier getting knocked to the ground. A Scottish warrior uses a pick-axe or hammer to bash the British victim's helmet, piercing it. Blood instantly gushes down across the man's face.
Gibson next fights the British again in The Patriot, a story of southern hero Benjamin Martin. Martin leads Continental military units in the American Revolution. Who can forget Gibson's character hacking furiously over and over again into a British soldier's body, stirring up enough blood in a slurry to completely drench himself.
Next,we find Gibson's bloody handiwork in the blockbuster The Passon of the Christ. I get really stirred up myself about this one, but not for the spiritual reasons that many people did during the initial presentation on the screen. I truly feel that the portrayal of Jesus in this movie was gratuitously violent. I do not in any way want to diminish the scourging that the Lord Jesus endured during his sufferings on the cross and immediately preceding. However, the film seems totally obsessed with beating Jesus to a bloody pulp. The focus of the movie did not seem to be on the substitutionary atonement provided by God as much as it was on the sheer volume of blood that one man carries within his veins. Movie makers have for many decades re-enacted the events of Christ's Passion. None of them that I have seen chose to focus so much on ribbons of torn tissue...and they made their point. It just seems odd to me that so many parents I know think it appropriate to shield their children's innocent eyes from such brutality "until they are older."
Now I see Apocalypto. Perhaps it is the logical next step in the progression of brutality. In The Passion, God made a sacrifice for the benefit of mankind. In Apocalypto, we see man making his own sacrifices. Severed heads roll down Aztecan temple steps. Men are impaled, bludgeoned, cut open. There is even the old Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom bit where the pagan priest removes his victim's heart and shows it to him just before he dies. Though dramatic, I found the film more disturbing that anything else.
The reason I write all this is just to point out that the work a man produces tells something about him. What do these films say about Mel Gibson? He was called a hero by many Christians for The Passion. But do the string of heads and rivers of staged blood demand a different verdict for the famed director? Or do they simply reveal more about me, the one who watches every blood-splattered scene?
In Braveheart, William Wallace leads the Scottish against the British in bloody battle scenes. It has been a while since I saw it, but I distinctly remember a soldier getting knocked to the ground. A Scottish warrior uses a pick-axe or hammer to bash the British victim's helmet, piercing it. Blood instantly gushes down across the man's face.
Gibson next fights the British again in The Patriot, a story of southern hero Benjamin Martin. Martin leads Continental military units in the American Revolution. Who can forget Gibson's character hacking furiously over and over again into a British soldier's body, stirring up enough blood in a slurry to completely drench himself.
Next,we find Gibson's bloody handiwork in the blockbuster The Passon of the Christ. I get really stirred up myself about this one, but not for the spiritual reasons that many people did during the initial presentation on the screen. I truly feel that the portrayal of Jesus in this movie was gratuitously violent. I do not in any way want to diminish the scourging that the Lord Jesus endured during his sufferings on the cross and immediately preceding. However, the film seems totally obsessed with beating Jesus to a bloody pulp. The focus of the movie did not seem to be on the substitutionary atonement provided by God as much as it was on the sheer volume of blood that one man carries within his veins. Movie makers have for many decades re-enacted the events of Christ's Passion. None of them that I have seen chose to focus so much on ribbons of torn tissue...and they made their point. It just seems odd to me that so many parents I know think it appropriate to shield their children's innocent eyes from such brutality "until they are older."
Now I see Apocalypto. Perhaps it is the logical next step in the progression of brutality. In The Passion, God made a sacrifice for the benefit of mankind. In Apocalypto, we see man making his own sacrifices. Severed heads roll down Aztecan temple steps. Men are impaled, bludgeoned, cut open. There is even the old Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom bit where the pagan priest removes his victim's heart and shows it to him just before he dies. Though dramatic, I found the film more disturbing that anything else.
The reason I write all this is just to point out that the work a man produces tells something about him. What do these films say about Mel Gibson? He was called a hero by many Christians for The Passion. But do the string of heads and rivers of staged blood demand a different verdict for the famed director? Or do they simply reveal more about me, the one who watches every blood-splattered scene?
Friday, July 8, 2011
Casey Anthony Verdict
Casey Anthony is a doofus. There is no way around that. Serious issues. Heartless. Whacko. Pick your descriptor. It seems fair enough.
What is running through my mind about all this Casey Anthony stuff is really not so much about her sordid story as it is about the reaction of people around me and on the television. When Ms. Anthony was declared not guilty of murdering her two-year-old daughter, I was surrounded by cries of injustice and declarations of what she really deserved. I even thought it a little.
This is not the first time I have witnessed this type of reaction to a case. Of course, OJ Simpson was acquitted and the whole world went to pieces. I reacted way more strongly to that one. There was also a case near my hometown in which the man was actually convicted of his crime, with a different reaction. Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere make it easy to hear people's thoughts. They were ready to rip this man apart themselves.
On the one hand, people are raising the issue of injustice. "Casey Anthony deserves the death penalty!" On the other hand, some are raising concerns that our country's lack of intestinal fortitude renders us impotent and spineless as jurors. "We couldn't recognize or declare guilt for anyone!"
I guess the troubling thing about it all is that no judgment is good enough. Have we, unlike "spineless jurors," become so bloodthirsty that we cannot allow ourselves the latitude to trust our justice system? Or are we as a people being swept away by sensationalistic opinions streaming across the internet? In either case, I am getting concerned. The angry mob can be dangerous, even for those who profit from riling them up.
What is running through my mind about all this Casey Anthony stuff is really not so much about her sordid story as it is about the reaction of people around me and on the television. When Ms. Anthony was declared not guilty of murdering her two-year-old daughter, I was surrounded by cries of injustice and declarations of what she really deserved. I even thought it a little.
This is not the first time I have witnessed this type of reaction to a case. Of course, OJ Simpson was acquitted and the whole world went to pieces. I reacted way more strongly to that one. There was also a case near my hometown in which the man was actually convicted of his crime, with a different reaction. Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere make it easy to hear people's thoughts. They were ready to rip this man apart themselves.
On the one hand, people are raising the issue of injustice. "Casey Anthony deserves the death penalty!" On the other hand, some are raising concerns that our country's lack of intestinal fortitude renders us impotent and spineless as jurors. "We couldn't recognize or declare guilt for anyone!"
I guess the troubling thing about it all is that no judgment is good enough. Have we, unlike "spineless jurors," become so bloodthirsty that we cannot allow ourselves the latitude to trust our justice system? Or are we as a people being swept away by sensationalistic opinions streaming across the internet? In either case, I am getting concerned. The angry mob can be dangerous, even for those who profit from riling them up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
