This post's story is an exciting one for me. Like the narrative
in the Bible, it merges the story of primordial giants with the story of
the worldwide Flood. Since both of these subjects are near and dear to
my heart, I find this myth utterly fascinating.
The
great god Viracocha, desiring to bring forth mankind, first set about
creating the earth and sky. Once these were complete, he carved out
great stone giants, which he then brought to life. Things were good on
earth, but the shiftless giants began to fight, and Viracocha did not
know what to do. So he turned some of the giants back into stone, but
this did not stop the rest of them from being violent. Then Viracocha
sent a flood, which destroyed the earth and all of life. After the
flood, Viracocha emerged from Lake Titicaca, on whose shores he built
the great city of Tiahuanaco. From this city he repopulated the earth
with men and women.
-Incan Myth, Paraphrased From Fr. Jose de Acosta's Natural and Moral History of the Indies
Father de Acosta was absolutely astonished at the parallels between
the Incan and Biblical accounts. And well he should be, for there are
few explanations as to why two distinct cultures separated by tens of
thousands of miles and several millennia would tell two very similar
stories. I'm curious to know what you all think? Any explanations for
the similarities?
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Poverty in America (Re-post)
*Originally posted 9/19/15*
There's been an enormous amount of talk about "poverty" here in America as of late. Our President mentions it every time there's a riot. Candidate Bernie Sanders has said something to the effect that no one who works forty hours a week should live in poverty. People cry out that we should bring an end to poverty, to level the playing field - that our government should bring an end to poverty. But here in America, I think we forget what poverty actually is.
And as a result I think we have forgotten what luxury is, too.
Now, I understand there are people who work hard - sometimes two or three jobs - have very little, and still wonder how they are going to make rent this month. If that's you, I'm not talking to you today.
There are single mothers who simply can't afford to send their children to special clubs after school, and so they don't. I'm not talking to you, either. All across this nation, there are people who are homeless, who have next-to-nothing, and it's not their fault. I'm not talking to them, either.
I'm talking, instead, to those who waste money and claim poverty. And before people start telling me that this is a Republican lie, let me shut you down now: first, I'm NOT a Republican. Second, I witnessed this firsthand. In my half-a-decade as a banker, I saw hundreds, if not thousands, of people who fit into one (or both) of these two categories.
I had a woman come into the bank, in tears, because her rent check bounced. Well, yes, it bounced, because she had spent that money on booze, a big screen television, and a $120 nail job. None of this, of course, was her fault, because she just had to have these things, and wasn't there anything I could do to - I don't know - manifest money out of thin air so she could have a place to live? She didn't ask that, but that's what she wanted me to do. She wanted me to make sure her check got paid, but she wasn't willing to put money in the bank in order to cover it. She was - her words, not mine - too broke.
This isn't poverty. Getting your nails done is not an essential of life. Having a television is not even an essential of life. And a fifth of whiskey - though it might make you feel better temporarily - won't pay the rent.
Here's an idea: go without a television for a while. If you have to choose between providing a roof for your children, or watching your favorite show on a 60-inch screen, I'd go with the roof. Besides, how are you going to watch that t.v. when you're homeless?
This woman wasn't poor because some business owner was a jerk. She wasn't facing eviction because some Republican refused to pass a law preventing it. She wasn't even poor because of her ethnicity. She was poor because she wasted her money on luxuries, thinking they were necessities.
Then there was the man who couldn't feed his kids for the next two weeks. Poor starving kids: Daddy works night shift and still can't feed you! What a horrible company he must work for!
It was either that, or the $1,500 dollars he spent the week before at a popular resort. For a two night stay. Yes, four people, $750 a night.
Look, if you have to choose between groceries or an expensive weekend getaway, go with the groceries. That's not political, folks, that's just common sense. If you are at a point where you skip vacations for a while, so what? Stay home, take the kids to the zoo one day, maybe go to a FREE park another day, and, guess what, that will still leave you $1,400 to feed your kids for the next two weeks.
But, Charles, what if he hadn't taken his kids on vacation in several years? Wouldn't that be unfair to make them wait? No, it wouldn't. Vacations are a luxury. Expensive vacations are a big luxury. Eating is neither.
Let me clear something up real quick: I am against neither vacations, nor stuff. I'm not against televisions, or movies . . . I'm not even against alcohol. What I am against are people who complain about how they are too poor to support their families, and yet they seem to find enough money to buy all of the latest gadgets, all of the newest, trendiest clothes, the most expensive car, and think nothing of dropping four dollars a day on coffee. Folks, if you make enough money to afford all of that, then you're doing a thousand times better than most of the world.
And that is, ultimately, my point. In many parts of the world, a "home" is a piece of tin over a couple of plywood boards. Literally. I have a friend who is from Bangladesh and I've seen pictures. Do you own a car? Then you are "ahead" of roughly 86% of the world's population (according to a 2007 paper from NYU). In the same paper, America makes up roughly 28% of total car ownership in the world.
Our definition of poverty is skewed. We have this attitude that we are entitled to whatever we want, whenever we want it, and it's been going on for decades. How's that working out for everyone? Yes, there is poverty, yes, there is homelessness, and yes, there is a great deal that needs to be done to help people, but the majority of "impoverished" people aren't really impoverished, they're just wasteful.
"But I can't pay my mortgage!" Shouldn't buy a new video game system every time it comes out. "But then my kids won't be like their friends!" I know. Your kids will actually have money. Now your kids are just like their friends: they all got broke parents.
"But Captain America's got a new movie coming out!" I know. And eight months after that, it'll be on DVD. You can wait.
"But I gotta have my coffee in the morning." Yeah, you keep paying four bucks a day. I'm going to keep drinking my $0.28 cup of coffee and keep living in my home.
"But I promised them we'd go to Disney before 2016!" Shouldn't promise your kids something you can't afford.
"My phone needed upgrading!" Why? Because it wouldn't load your snapchat pictures fast enough?
We need to wake up, folks. I'm just spit-balling a number here, but I would venture to guess that about 75% of my "broke" clients weren't broke, they just wasted their money on frivolous things. Phones are good. I have a smartphone. Guess what? It's also the second phone I've ever owned. I had the first one for nine years, and it was the exact opposite of a smartphone. It was more like a Forrest Gump phone. It sent and received calls. That's it - and it barely did even that. Some of you who claim poverty are out there buying a new phone every year. Stop doing that.
My wife and I don't have a fancy cable package. We get local channels, C-Span, and the Home Shopping Network. I don't need to watch Duck Dynasty, and we're not trying to keep up with any of the Kardashians, so we don't pay extra to get those channels; we've found other things to do.
My last car was driven, almost, into the ground. It was rusted through, burned through oil, and rattled when it idled (that part was actually kind of nice, because it was like sitting in one of those massage chairs). Why did I wait so long to replace it? Because it took twelve years to save up for a new one.
I haven't bought a new book in years, but my daughter and I go to the library every week. Because, you know, libraries are free.
Now, none of this is meant to be a bragging session, as in, "Look how little we spend!" But it is meant to show that it can be done. Your kids don't need everything the world has to offer, but they do need to learn discipline and self-control.
Jesus said, "Don't store up treasures on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal" (Matthew 6:19-20). Sound advice. Of course, the core of the issue is in verse 21: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be."
If we live for and worship the things that are temporary, then when we stand before God, we're not going to know Him. And all of our stuff, all of the vacations, all of the frivolous things upon which we spent our money, will be long-gone and we will have nothing left to show for ourselves.
And then we will hear the most frightening words possible: the Creator of the universe is going to look at us and say, "Depart from Me, because I never knew you."
And, folks, you can't take your television to Hell.
There's been an enormous amount of talk about "poverty" here in America as of late. Our President mentions it every time there's a riot. Candidate Bernie Sanders has said something to the effect that no one who works forty hours a week should live in poverty. People cry out that we should bring an end to poverty, to level the playing field - that our government should bring an end to poverty. But here in America, I think we forget what poverty actually is.
And as a result I think we have forgotten what luxury is, too.
Now, I understand there are people who work hard - sometimes two or three jobs - have very little, and still wonder how they are going to make rent this month. If that's you, I'm not talking to you today.
There are single mothers who simply can't afford to send their children to special clubs after school, and so they don't. I'm not talking to you, either. All across this nation, there are people who are homeless, who have next-to-nothing, and it's not their fault. I'm not talking to them, either.
I'm talking, instead, to those who waste money and claim poverty. And before people start telling me that this is a Republican lie, let me shut you down now: first, I'm NOT a Republican. Second, I witnessed this firsthand. In my half-a-decade as a banker, I saw hundreds, if not thousands, of people who fit into one (or both) of these two categories.
I had a woman come into the bank, in tears, because her rent check bounced. Well, yes, it bounced, because she had spent that money on booze, a big screen television, and a $120 nail job. None of this, of course, was her fault, because she just had to have these things, and wasn't there anything I could do to - I don't know - manifest money out of thin air so she could have a place to live? She didn't ask that, but that's what she wanted me to do. She wanted me to make sure her check got paid, but she wasn't willing to put money in the bank in order to cover it. She was - her words, not mine - too broke.
This isn't poverty. Getting your nails done is not an essential of life. Having a television is not even an essential of life. And a fifth of whiskey - though it might make you feel better temporarily - won't pay the rent.
Here's an idea: go without a television for a while. If you have to choose between providing a roof for your children, or watching your favorite show on a 60-inch screen, I'd go with the roof. Besides, how are you going to watch that t.v. when you're homeless?
This woman wasn't poor because some business owner was a jerk. She wasn't facing eviction because some Republican refused to pass a law preventing it. She wasn't even poor because of her ethnicity. She was poor because she wasted her money on luxuries, thinking they were necessities.
Then there was the man who couldn't feed his kids for the next two weeks. Poor starving kids: Daddy works night shift and still can't feed you! What a horrible company he must work for!
It was either that, or the $1,500 dollars he spent the week before at a popular resort. For a two night stay. Yes, four people, $750 a night.
Look, if you have to choose between groceries or an expensive weekend getaway, go with the groceries. That's not political, folks, that's just common sense. If you are at a point where you skip vacations for a while, so what? Stay home, take the kids to the zoo one day, maybe go to a FREE park another day, and, guess what, that will still leave you $1,400 to feed your kids for the next two weeks.
But, Charles, what if he hadn't taken his kids on vacation in several years? Wouldn't that be unfair to make them wait? No, it wouldn't. Vacations are a luxury. Expensive vacations are a big luxury. Eating is neither.
Let me clear something up real quick: I am against neither vacations, nor stuff. I'm not against televisions, or movies . . . I'm not even against alcohol. What I am against are people who complain about how they are too poor to support their families, and yet they seem to find enough money to buy all of the latest gadgets, all of the newest, trendiest clothes, the most expensive car, and think nothing of dropping four dollars a day on coffee. Folks, if you make enough money to afford all of that, then you're doing a thousand times better than most of the world.
And that is, ultimately, my point. In many parts of the world, a "home" is a piece of tin over a couple of plywood boards. Literally. I have a friend who is from Bangladesh and I've seen pictures. Do you own a car? Then you are "ahead" of roughly 86% of the world's population (according to a 2007 paper from NYU). In the same paper, America makes up roughly 28% of total car ownership in the world.
Our definition of poverty is skewed. We have this attitude that we are entitled to whatever we want, whenever we want it, and it's been going on for decades. How's that working out for everyone? Yes, there is poverty, yes, there is homelessness, and yes, there is a great deal that needs to be done to help people, but the majority of "impoverished" people aren't really impoverished, they're just wasteful.
"But I can't pay my mortgage!" Shouldn't buy a new video game system every time it comes out. "But then my kids won't be like their friends!" I know. Your kids will actually have money. Now your kids are just like their friends: they all got broke parents.
"But Captain America's got a new movie coming out!" I know. And eight months after that, it'll be on DVD. You can wait.
"But I gotta have my coffee in the morning." Yeah, you keep paying four bucks a day. I'm going to keep drinking my $0.28 cup of coffee and keep living in my home.
"But I promised them we'd go to Disney before 2016!" Shouldn't promise your kids something you can't afford.
"My phone needed upgrading!" Why? Because it wouldn't load your snapchat pictures fast enough?
We need to wake up, folks. I'm just spit-balling a number here, but I would venture to guess that about 75% of my "broke" clients weren't broke, they just wasted their money on frivolous things. Phones are good. I have a smartphone. Guess what? It's also the second phone I've ever owned. I had the first one for nine years, and it was the exact opposite of a smartphone. It was more like a Forrest Gump phone. It sent and received calls. That's it - and it barely did even that. Some of you who claim poverty are out there buying a new phone every year. Stop doing that.
My wife and I don't have a fancy cable package. We get local channels, C-Span, and the Home Shopping Network. I don't need to watch Duck Dynasty, and we're not trying to keep up with any of the Kardashians, so we don't pay extra to get those channels; we've found other things to do.
My last car was driven, almost, into the ground. It was rusted through, burned through oil, and rattled when it idled (that part was actually kind of nice, because it was like sitting in one of those massage chairs). Why did I wait so long to replace it? Because it took twelve years to save up for a new one.
I haven't bought a new book in years, but my daughter and I go to the library every week. Because, you know, libraries are free.
Now, none of this is meant to be a bragging session, as in, "Look how little we spend!" But it is meant to show that it can be done. Your kids don't need everything the world has to offer, but they do need to learn discipline and self-control.
Jesus said, "Don't store up treasures on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal" (Matthew 6:19-20). Sound advice. Of course, the core of the issue is in verse 21: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be."
If we live for and worship the things that are temporary, then when we stand before God, we're not going to know Him. And all of our stuff, all of the vacations, all of the frivolous things upon which we spent our money, will be long-gone and we will have nothing left to show for ourselves.
And then we will hear the most frightening words possible: the Creator of the universe is going to look at us and say, "Depart from Me, because I never knew you."
And, folks, you can't take your television to Hell.
Friday, September 21, 2018
The Love of Most Will Grow Cold. . . .
My backlog of movies to watch has grown longer and longer by the month, but I finally got around to watching Logan, the final (?) chapter in the Wolverine saga. Look, I'm a big fan of the MCU, and the DC Universe . . . well, okay, not so much on the DC Universe. But rarely does a film, and never a comic book film, linger and resonate with me so long after watching it. I love the Marvel stories and characters, but they're popcorn flicks: entertaining and smartly-written, but entertainment. I love the Dark Knight Trilogy (the only DC movies I have finished), but they don't move me the way this movie did.
And I think that's because it wasn't a comic book movie. It was, rather, a movie about mending broken relationships, leaving behind ended relationships, and forging new relationships. It was a film about pain, hurt, fear, and longing. It was primarily a movie about family, and the superpowers and mutants really just felt like a side plot, an "Oh yeah, and they're mutants."
*Big old spoiler alert! If you haven't seen Logan, or Infinity War, or, perhaps any other movie (I'm not sure where this is going, so anything could get spoiled!), you might want to stop reading now.*
Maybe it was Patrick Stewart's broken, angry, confused Xavier. Maybe it was the fact that his death was so surprising - even anticlimactic - that it felt so incredibly real. Because death isn't usually neat, and never convenient. Maybe it's the fact that Logan's death was also Hugh Jackman's final moment as Wolverine, a character he spent twenty years developing. Maybe it's because these men spent two decades portraying these characters, and their Swan Song was the best performance - I think - we've ever seen out of either of them (and, yes, I include Captain Picard in that comparison).
It was definitely the girl. This young girl - I think she was eleven, but I'm too lazy to look it up - was so beautiful in her complexity that it easily got lost on me that she was holding her own with both Stewart and Jackman . . . and she did it for over an hour without saying a word. She didn't have to say anything. Her eyes told everything.
And her scream. That primal scream when she saw Xavier's body in the back of the truck . . . it was utterly heartbreaking. Without a single line of dialogue, her scream conveyed the intensity of losing the only person she trusted - losing her kindly old "grandfather" - and being left with this angry, terrifying, estranged father.
I was shocked when Loki and Heimdall were killed. I even teared up when Gamora was killed. But this film has moved me and disturbed me in ways that most movies don't. And I'm not even sure I liked the movie, to be honest.
I can tolerate some language in a film, even really profane language, but ten minutes into this movie and I was sort of wishing they had hired me to edit the dialogue a bit. I can tolerate violence - even graphic violence - to a degree, but by the end of the movie, I no longer wanted to know how many different ways people could be killed by metal claws.
And yet, it sticks. It sticks because it was so very real. It was so very character-driven, so very emotional, and - let's face it - if you've lived for close to two-hundred years, fought in every major war, lost everyone you've ever loved or cared about, you're probably going to pick up some bad language habits. And shoving metal through people's heads will be bloody. And a girl who was made in a test tube, raised as an experiment, trained to be an assassin, and lost her entire family . . . yeah, she's going to have issues. The movie was poignant because it was real.
Except, of course, it wasn't real - it was only a movie. Men don't have psychic powers. Girls don't have claws in their hands. No one has an adamantium-coated skeleton..
Which is what makes this whole thing disturbing. I am moved - to the point of tears and even some mild depression - by a fictional movie with fictional people. Logan isn't real. Xavier isn't real. Laura isn't real. The family dynamics were scripted and sculpted. The blood was fake, the deaths were lies, and yet the film moved not only myself, but so many other people.
My uncle died a few weeks ago and, believe me, it made me sad. Really sad. But not as sad as this film. A friend of mine just lost his brother, and that made me incredibly sad, but not as sad as Laura's loss made me feel. My wife's grandmother died last July, and I regret that we never made it one last time to visit her, but not as much as I regret Xavier's anticlimactic death.
That should terrify me. I think - I hope - it does, or I may not be writing this. Jesus says in Matthew 24 that as the end approaches, "the love of most will grow cold." I've always taken that to mean that non-believers will just get angry. But when we look at the context, it's actually far more disturbing:
"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved" (24:10-13).
I think - and I suppose it's a bit vague here - but I think Jesus is talking about believers. I think Jesus is talking about people who, when they see the wicked prosper and they see the world's headlong rush into the depths of Hell, simply stop caring. I think He's talking about people who should be preaching the Gospel and loving their neighbors as themselves, but who, instead, simply grow apathetic to the suffering and plight of mankind.
And this brings up an uncomfortable realization: my love might be growing cold. When I care more about fictional characters in a movie than I do my own family. . . .
When I care more about drama on the latest episode of some television show than I do the heartache of my neighbor. . . .
When I'm more excited that they cast some big name in the next Marvel movie than I am the joy of a friend's newborn. . . .
Brothers and sisters, this is unacceptable. We cannot let our love grow cold. We cannot let cynicism and apathy harden our hearts. We cannot let distrust keep us from helping the poor, the widowed, and the orphans. People are dying and going to Hell, and we're crying over a movie.
Maybe it's time to do the hard thing and turn off the television, shut down the computer, and spend some time in prayer and the Scriptures. Maybe it's time to actually be obedient and take opportunities to love our neighbors as we love ourselves - and certainly to love them more than we love a comic book hero.
Logan may have died, but he didn't die for your sins, or mine. Xavier may have been executed, but he wasn't executed for your neighbor's sins. And, at least in the comics, they may come back from time to time, but only one Man had the power to actually resurrect Himself. And He is worthy of far more love than anything else we could ever invent.
And I think that's because it wasn't a comic book movie. It was, rather, a movie about mending broken relationships, leaving behind ended relationships, and forging new relationships. It was a film about pain, hurt, fear, and longing. It was primarily a movie about family, and the superpowers and mutants really just felt like a side plot, an "Oh yeah, and they're mutants."
*Big old spoiler alert! If you haven't seen Logan, or Infinity War, or, perhaps any other movie (I'm not sure where this is going, so anything could get spoiled!), you might want to stop reading now.*
Maybe it was Patrick Stewart's broken, angry, confused Xavier. Maybe it was the fact that his death was so surprising - even anticlimactic - that it felt so incredibly real. Because death isn't usually neat, and never convenient. Maybe it's the fact that Logan's death was also Hugh Jackman's final moment as Wolverine, a character he spent twenty years developing. Maybe it's because these men spent two decades portraying these characters, and their Swan Song was the best performance - I think - we've ever seen out of either of them (and, yes, I include Captain Picard in that comparison).
It was definitely the girl. This young girl - I think she was eleven, but I'm too lazy to look it up - was so beautiful in her complexity that it easily got lost on me that she was holding her own with both Stewart and Jackman . . . and she did it for over an hour without saying a word. She didn't have to say anything. Her eyes told everything.
And her scream. That primal scream when she saw Xavier's body in the back of the truck . . . it was utterly heartbreaking. Without a single line of dialogue, her scream conveyed the intensity of losing the only person she trusted - losing her kindly old "grandfather" - and being left with this angry, terrifying, estranged father.
I was shocked when Loki and Heimdall were killed. I even teared up when Gamora was killed. But this film has moved me and disturbed me in ways that most movies don't. And I'm not even sure I liked the movie, to be honest.
I can tolerate some language in a film, even really profane language, but ten minutes into this movie and I was sort of wishing they had hired me to edit the dialogue a bit. I can tolerate violence - even graphic violence - to a degree, but by the end of the movie, I no longer wanted to know how many different ways people could be killed by metal claws.
And yet, it sticks. It sticks because it was so very real. It was so very character-driven, so very emotional, and - let's face it - if you've lived for close to two-hundred years, fought in every major war, lost everyone you've ever loved or cared about, you're probably going to pick up some bad language habits. And shoving metal through people's heads will be bloody. And a girl who was made in a test tube, raised as an experiment, trained to be an assassin, and lost her entire family . . . yeah, she's going to have issues. The movie was poignant because it was real.
Except, of course, it wasn't real - it was only a movie. Men don't have psychic powers. Girls don't have claws in their hands. No one has an adamantium-coated skeleton..
Which is what makes this whole thing disturbing. I am moved - to the point of tears and even some mild depression - by a fictional movie with fictional people. Logan isn't real. Xavier isn't real. Laura isn't real. The family dynamics were scripted and sculpted. The blood was fake, the deaths were lies, and yet the film moved not only myself, but so many other people.
My uncle died a few weeks ago and, believe me, it made me sad. Really sad. But not as sad as this film. A friend of mine just lost his brother, and that made me incredibly sad, but not as sad as Laura's loss made me feel. My wife's grandmother died last July, and I regret that we never made it one last time to visit her, but not as much as I regret Xavier's anticlimactic death.
That should terrify me. I think - I hope - it does, or I may not be writing this. Jesus says in Matthew 24 that as the end approaches, "the love of most will grow cold." I've always taken that to mean that non-believers will just get angry. But when we look at the context, it's actually far more disturbing:
"At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved" (24:10-13).
I think - and I suppose it's a bit vague here - but I think Jesus is talking about believers. I think Jesus is talking about people who, when they see the wicked prosper and they see the world's headlong rush into the depths of Hell, simply stop caring. I think He's talking about people who should be preaching the Gospel and loving their neighbors as themselves, but who, instead, simply grow apathetic to the suffering and plight of mankind.
And this brings up an uncomfortable realization: my love might be growing cold. When I care more about fictional characters in a movie than I do my own family. . . .
When I care more about drama on the latest episode of some television show than I do the heartache of my neighbor. . . .
When I'm more excited that they cast some big name in the next Marvel movie than I am the joy of a friend's newborn. . . .
Brothers and sisters, this is unacceptable. We cannot let our love grow cold. We cannot let cynicism and apathy harden our hearts. We cannot let distrust keep us from helping the poor, the widowed, and the orphans. People are dying and going to Hell, and we're crying over a movie.
Maybe it's time to do the hard thing and turn off the television, shut down the computer, and spend some time in prayer and the Scriptures. Maybe it's time to actually be obedient and take opportunities to love our neighbors as we love ourselves - and certainly to love them more than we love a comic book hero.
Logan may have died, but he didn't die for your sins, or mine. Xavier may have been executed, but he wasn't executed for your neighbor's sins. And, at least in the comics, they may come back from time to time, but only one Man had the power to actually resurrect Himself. And He is worthy of far more love than anything else we could ever invent.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Bill Looney
Hey!
I just wanted to encourage you guys to take a look at another book illustrated by Bill Looney (who illustrated Giants). You can find the book on Amazon here!
Oh, and here's a link to his site!
http://looneybill.com/
I just wanted to encourage you guys to take a look at another book illustrated by Bill Looney (who illustrated Giants). You can find the book on Amazon here!
Oh, and here's a link to his site!
http://looneybill.com/
Monday, August 20, 2018
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Edible Kale
After decades of Bible study and years of attempting to eat kale, I am now firmly convinced that kale is of the Devil. It's sharp, thistle-like leaves are almost the perfect example of the "thorns and thistles" with which God curses man in Genesis 3. But, as with all things, God can redeem it, and He has left a way to cook kale that actually allows it to be edible - and even taste good! This is a really simple recipe that requires very little culinary skill, and it allows you enjoy the benefits of kale without the suffering.
So kale is a really tough leaf, and chewing it can feel like trying to chew a piece of silicone. The key, therefore, is to break down the tough fibers of the leaf. The second issue is flavor - kale tastes like weeds. It's a strange mix of broccoli, cabbage, and grass, and so imparting some kind of flavor is important. So you need lots of cooking and lots of flavor.
With that said, let's get going:
2 T olive oil
1/2 medium onion, chopped
2 cloves of garlic, minced
one bunch of kale, washed and finely chopped
1/4 cup red wine vinegar
1/4 - 1/2 cup water
salt and pepper to taste
1) Heat oil in large skillet or Dutch oven over medium-high heat. Add onions and garlic, and saute, stirring, for 30 seconds.
2) Add kale, reduce heat to medium, and cook, stirring occasionally, for ten minutes. Add vinegar, stirring to incorporate, and cook for another ten minutes. If kale seems dry, add 1/4-1/2 cup water. Add salt and pepper to taste (I do about 1/4t each).
3) Reduce heat to medium-low, cover with a tight fitting lid, and let simmer for 1 hour.
4) Remove lid. Kale should be moist and the leaves quite soft. If it's not done yet, cover and cook for another 30 minutes.
5) Remove lid and let simmer for 15 more minutes, or until the water is mostly evaporated. Store in an airtight container in the refrigerator for up to 4 days.
So kale is a really tough leaf, and chewing it can feel like trying to chew a piece of silicone. The key, therefore, is to break down the tough fibers of the leaf. The second issue is flavor - kale tastes like weeds. It's a strange mix of broccoli, cabbage, and grass, and so imparting some kind of flavor is important. So you need lots of cooking and lots of flavor.
With that said, let's get going:
2 T olive oil
1/2 medium onion, chopped
2 cloves of garlic, minced
one bunch of kale, washed and finely chopped
1/4 cup red wine vinegar
1/4 - 1/2 cup water
salt and pepper to taste
1) Heat oil in large skillet or Dutch oven over medium-high heat. Add onions and garlic, and saute, stirring, for 30 seconds.
2) Add kale, reduce heat to medium, and cook, stirring occasionally, for ten minutes. Add vinegar, stirring to incorporate, and cook for another ten minutes. If kale seems dry, add 1/4-1/2 cup water. Add salt and pepper to taste (I do about 1/4t each).
3) Reduce heat to medium-low, cover with a tight fitting lid, and let simmer for 1 hour.
4) Remove lid. Kale should be moist and the leaves quite soft. If it's not done yet, cover and cook for another 30 minutes.
5) Remove lid and let simmer for 15 more minutes, or until the water is mostly evaporated. Store in an airtight container in the refrigerator for up to 4 days.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
The Myth of Fire, Part 2
The Maori people (Polynesia/New Zealand) also have a story that explains the origin of fire. Now, to be fair, their story begins in medias res, after mankind already has fire. In this story, however, humans have to keep their fires burning continuously, since no one knows how to start a fire. In other words, once the fires goes out, everyone is doomed to eat raw food.
Maui, being a bit of a trickster - as well as a demigod - decided to find out exactly where fire originates, so once everyone was asleep, he ran around and put out all of the world's fires. Then, when everyone woke up to find that they could not cook breakfast, he volunteered to go find more fire.
The source of fire was located inside of a burning mountain, all red and glowing, hot as the sun. Mahuika, the goddess of fire, was more than happy to give Maui one of her toenails, once she discovered that earth had lost all of its fire.
However, after a series of deceptions on Maui's part, after which Mahuika had given up all but one of her toenails and her fingernails, the goddess grew angry, and tried to engulf Maui in flames. He turned into a hawk and fled, but fire had singed his wings, and the waters over which he flew boiled with the heat. She threw her remaining toenail at him, which landed in a tree and embedded the fire in the tree.
Maui brought a branch back, bringing with it fire, which he then gave to the rest of the world (and there was much rejoicing).
On the surface, the story is vastly different from the previous stories. But notice a few of the details:
1) Maui is semi-divine - like Giant and Prometheus, Maui is a supernatural creature, but not one of the chief gods of his culture
2) Maui is a trickster - like Giant and Prometheus, Maui is deceptive, and he uses his deception to his advantage
3) Maui's trickster nature angers the more powerful goddess - like the gods of the Tsimshians, or the gods of the Greek Pantheon, the goddess Mahuika is furious at Maui's attempts to steal her fire
4) That blasted stick - Like Prometheus, who brings fire back in a fennel stalk, and Agni, who brings it back in the pramanthaya, Maui brings fire back in a stick.
5) Source of fire - Maui may not have ascended into the heavens, but he did go to the ends of the earth, and while he may not have retrieved the fire from the sun, he did retrieve it from the largest burning object on earth.
There are other, minor connections - the fact that Giant and Maui both transform into birds, for example - but these five points are interesting. Again, I'm not trying to say that this story is 100% accurate, or that there was even a mountain of fire somewhere on the earth at some point, but these details keep popping up all over the globe, and between cultures that have no relation to each other whatsoever.
This should make us pause and reconsider the narrative of our past that most people so readily accept and believe. Perhaps there really were giants in our ancient past, and perhaps they really were heroes of old and men of renown. And if the Bible is right about that point, what else might it be right about?
For a detailed telling of the story, please click here.
Maui, being a bit of a trickster - as well as a demigod - decided to find out exactly where fire originates, so once everyone was asleep, he ran around and put out all of the world's fires. Then, when everyone woke up to find that they could not cook breakfast, he volunteered to go find more fire.
The source of fire was located inside of a burning mountain, all red and glowing, hot as the sun. Mahuika, the goddess of fire, was more than happy to give Maui one of her toenails, once she discovered that earth had lost all of its fire.
However, after a series of deceptions on Maui's part, after which Mahuika had given up all but one of her toenails and her fingernails, the goddess grew angry, and tried to engulf Maui in flames. He turned into a hawk and fled, but fire had singed his wings, and the waters over which he flew boiled with the heat. She threw her remaining toenail at him, which landed in a tree and embedded the fire in the tree.
Maui brought a branch back, bringing with it fire, which he then gave to the rest of the world (and there was much rejoicing).
On the surface, the story is vastly different from the previous stories. But notice a few of the details:
1) Maui is semi-divine - like Giant and Prometheus, Maui is a supernatural creature, but not one of the chief gods of his culture
2) Maui is a trickster - like Giant and Prometheus, Maui is deceptive, and he uses his deception to his advantage
3) Maui's trickster nature angers the more powerful goddess - like the gods of the Tsimshians, or the gods of the Greek Pantheon, the goddess Mahuika is furious at Maui's attempts to steal her fire
4) That blasted stick - Like Prometheus, who brings fire back in a fennel stalk, and Agni, who brings it back in the pramanthaya, Maui brings fire back in a stick.
5) Source of fire - Maui may not have ascended into the heavens, but he did go to the ends of the earth, and while he may not have retrieved the fire from the sun, he did retrieve it from the largest burning object on earth.
There are other, minor connections - the fact that Giant and Maui both transform into birds, for example - but these five points are interesting. Again, I'm not trying to say that this story is 100% accurate, or that there was even a mountain of fire somewhere on the earth at some point, but these details keep popping up all over the globe, and between cultures that have no relation to each other whatsoever.
This should make us pause and reconsider the narrative of our past that most people so readily accept and believe. Perhaps there really were giants in our ancient past, and perhaps they really were heroes of old and men of renown. And if the Bible is right about that point, what else might it be right about?
For a detailed telling of the story, please click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)