Something to Think About...

Was challenged by an African pastor this past week (not deliberately on his part, but merely by the testimony of his life) that in American Christianity we cannot hope to be preaching the entire Gospel if we do not make clear that demons and Satan are real enemies that are quite cunning in their actions toward humanity.


Of course I knew this, or at least I thought I did, until I encountered this man's stunning and robust theology and practical experience in this field.  Now I'm leaning toward the mindset that we are more darkened in our understanding than I previously thought.

It is my conviction that we should always move toward preaching "the whole counsel of God" and I think perhaps I have shied away from this topic more than I should have-especially when I consider that there was a significant portion of Jesus' ministry dedicated to deliverance.  To be clear: I have preached on this topic and even testified about it, but it has perhaps been too rare a thing for me, especially in a society that is arguably more demonized than it's ever been before.

I am not saying I'm ready to start focusing on this topic (I think any distraction from Jesus as THE POINT of it all would be a BAD idea) or that I'm going to be the guy who says there's a demon lurking under every bush.

I am saying that I am going to have to think and pray into this topic some more because I need a more well rounded theology here and a more striking/penetrating way to communicate this topic while avoiding the pitfalls of ignoring it and of sensationalizing it.  We (us Americans) are about as bad in this area (or worse) than we are in our understanding of the judgments of God.

Diets, TV, Social Networking, Yo Yo's and More!

I know that what I’m about to say is controversial and that people on both sides of this argument will likely exaggerate and/or take my words out of context.  Nevertheless, I feel as though I have to talk about this topic. 

Growing up, I remember when the no-fat diets went into vogue. Scientists backed it up.  Doctors would get on TV and tell people how healthy it was to cut fat from their diets, and there were loads of magazine articles telling everyone they had to avoid fat if they were to ever become thin.  Tons of people were coming forward giving personal testimonies to how effective this diet craze was.  All this stuff made such great sense that no one could really question it, save for butter-loving Julia Child who denounced such ideas as bad cooking.

The YoYo: Fun toy for kids and grown-ups
alike!  But it makes for crappy dieting!

Fast forward a few years into the late 1990’s.  The Atkins, a.k.a. “high protein” or “low carb” diet gained national notoriety.  Now the buzz was that you could eat fats—in fact, your body needed them for things like brain health and vitamin absorbtion!  What was causing people to become fat was eating carbs—evil carbs!  Again, the scientists backed it up, doctors got on TV, articles were written and even more testimony-sharing zealots spread their story of how fun it was to eat fatty steak and broccoli while still losing weight!

Now we have a new diet, albeit, this one is slightly different (I feel) in how it’s coming about.  The new diet is a conglomeration of vegan, no GMO’s and organic foods.  Now the “science” is saying that you can’t eat meat, genetically altered foods or anything that uses pesticides because it’s unhealthy.  Scientists are backing this up, doctors are on TV (and web videos), and there are tons of testimonials; only this time the people testifying are able to spread their ideas quickly on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and the like.

What is happening is that social media and the web have come alongside the traditional media outlets to either confirm or deny “truths” to our society, and this includes the “truth” about what we eat.  Anyone in marketing worth their salt knows this, and many documentary filmmakers know this too. 

It is important to note that documentary makers are not reporters and they are not the “new media” that can be trusted more than others (it’s no secret that lots of people are looking for alternative yet viable news sources in this day and age).  Documentary filmmakers are still filmmakers, and the good ones have got an angle to make their film appealing.  Shock value still sells, and people purporting any kind of exposé on the food industry are not going to try to present a balanced argument, they are going to present a biased view so as to sell more of their documentary.  The news does the same thing.

TV shows that put the “pop scientists” on their shows, are likewise still after viewers.  I’m not calling these people evil, I’m not saying that they all, or even most of them, have an agenda.  I am saying that my experience in TV, film production, radio and sales have led me to conclude that when something is hip it’s going to get air time and the people showing it aren’t going to ask too many deep questions about the validity of what they are airing, nor are they necessarily going to present balanced arguments because it makes for boring content.  

The kicker for all this is that I’ve lived long enough to have seen too many of these fad diets not work in the lives of real people: long term, that is… the weight comes off, then goes back on, comes off then goes back on again.  “Yo-yo dieting” I believe it is called.  Yes, there are a lot of success stories, but that's usually because someone started down the road with one of these diets, learned healthy habits and then balanced themselves out as they went.  

Disclaimers: I’m not calling this a big conspiracy made up by the organic food people, and I’m not even saying that there is no truth to what is said in documentaries such as Food, Inc. or Forks Over Knives.  I am NOT saying I am a nutrition expert, know more than scientists or doctors, etc.  I’m just stating my hesitance to buy into all of what they are saying; I think there's a lot of exaggeration going on.

I’m also not saying it’s bad to be vegan or vegetarian.  You can still be strong, get enough protein and beat up people that eat meat.  Except for AHNOWLD.  No one beats up AHNOWLD!

The reason I've felt compelled, maybe even pushed to write this article is that some people are getting dogmatic, even religious and sometimes, unfortunately, self-righteous over this vegan thing, organic, no GMO thing.  So let me say it here: believe it or not, it’s a proven, self-evident fact that there are other ways to lose weight and be genuinely healthy OTHER than going vegan/organic/no GMO, or as I will say from now on, "VOGMO." 

I would like to point out that typically, whenever people start to think about what they eat on a regular basis, they take in less unhealthy food and often exercise more too!  This always helps people lose weight, regardless of what diet they are on, and this is a good thing.  Bravo!  I am honestly happy for them.  I recently heard from someone on the VOGMO diet/lifestyle who lost 40 pounds and is in way better health than he previously was—I’m delighted for him.  I also spoke with a relative just the other day who had lost 3 inches to the waistline: on a low-carb diet eating soy (GMO’s!), non-organic veggies and meats with all sorts of added hormones! 

When I was over 300 pounds, I lost about 80 pounds of fat just by eating less food overall, but making healthier choices for what I did eat and exercising more.  15 years later, the weight is still off.  But I eat meat all but probably 3 or 4 days a year.  Plus I love cheese.  Eggs I could live without, but not the cheese.  So vegan is a lifestyle that I could not embrace.  

So on the one hand, I applaud any diet if it helps people lose weight andkeep it off by helping them transform their lifestyle.  Sometimes, just getting started and learning some things about taking care of one’s body is a beginning for people that are losing weight, but their education should continue. 

On the other hand, I denounce making any one diet dogma, especially when any diet is presented as a fix-all to one’s health and obesity issues. No diet can replace other healthy habits nor self-control when it comes to eating and exercising.  

To all who have lost weight or are continuing to lose weight through whatever means, I wish you the very best in getting to your target weight and in learning all the habits of heart and mind that keep that weight off of you.  It’s not easy, but it is worth it. 

To my VOGMO friends, I respect your decisions, understand why you are making those decisions and bless you to be in good health.  I believe there is much to be learned from you, and hopefully the points you bring up will improve the food industry and care of animals.  I am genuinely glad you have shared with me why you eat the way you do.  Now I feel I have said my peace as to why I eat the way I do.  Let us then live in peace.  :)

Skeptism Yay!

This is a blog about skeptic philosophy.  Please know there is a serious difference between someone who says, "I'm a skeptic" in the casual sense and someone who says, "I am a skeptic philosopher."  Still, if you know the definition of the word "skeptic" then you've got an idea where this school is coming from: there's some serious doubt going on!  

To MAJORLY oversimplify and summarize the arguments of skeptic philosophers is to say,"you can't really be sure that you know anything."  

For example, if you've ever seen the movie The Matrix, people are living in a pseudo-reality that is generated by computers, giving people a false impression of what is real while machines sap their bodies of life.  What people think is real is not really real, but they have no way of knowing that until they are pulled into a world that is actually real.  (This is admittedly not a great way to explain skepticism because being hooked into a super-computer that sucks your life from you is far-fetched.  However, the principle here will stand true.  Bear with me.)

You and I do not KNOW with absolute certainty that we aren't hooked up to a machine that generates a reality for us.  And we can't prove it.  Any proof that we try to generate can be debunked with some kind of argument.

• History?  
• How do you know that those who recorded it are telling the truth? 
• That those people were accurate or had access to accurate data or information? 
• How do you know that these memories were not implanted in your head and that you never actually lived any of them?  
• First-Hand Experiential Knowledge?  
• How do you know that you can trust your senses?  
• How do you know that your memories of what happened are still accurate?  
• If you recorded it, how do you know that you were honest with yourself or that you indeed wrote an accurate description or that how you are interpreting what you wrote then is correct?
• Science?  
• How do you know that the biases of the scientists aren't in play?  
• How can scientists be accurate when data can seemingly change over and over as we've seen happen a lot (think health sciences or global warming or cooling)?  
• What if everything in our world is a deception by some power in charge of things beyond us and we're being made to think what we think?

Of course, you can argue away the simple points I made here, but eventually, the skeptic wins out because he can keep asking more and more questions as to the foundations and justifications for your knowledge (this goes to another branch of philosophy called Foundationalism, but we won't be discussing that here).  So long as you can get to a question that someone doesn't know the answer to, the skeptic wins.

This doesn't necessarily make this a popular philosophical idea though because it's irritating and seemingly not-applicable to anything in the real world.  And more importantly, few people actually believe that we don't really know anything, at least not to the degree that they are willing to passively suffer pain or even die for such beliefs.

Skepticism is Refreshing?

For these reasons, I actually found this premise of skepticism quite refreshing because it highly emphasizes a wonderful facet of Christianity (and you could apply it to other faiths as well).  That is, you can't know anything in this world other than by faith.  You can't know that you know anything.  If you'd like to prove that you know something, read some skeptic philosophy and you'll find your argument destroyed because at some point down the line, you are going to have to accept that what you know is actually a belief and that you are resting on your faith, not in your actual knowledge.   

St. Augustine of Hippo.  In this illustration (done over 1,000 years after his death and therefore probably looks nothing like him), our hero Augustine has been interrupted from writing in a book because he is receiving a burning heart from a glowing orb of light named "Veritas" (Latin for "Truth").  Thank goodness for this TOTALLY SWEET illustration that tells me how Augustine came up with all of those great ideas!

Augustine's Argument:

For example, to expound on an argument made by St. Augustine, how do I know that my parents are really my parents?  Do I know this or do I just believe it?  Did I see myself get formed in the womb, or come out of it?  If I did see it, do I remember it?  Or am I just taking someone's word for this?  If I am taking their word for it, how do I know that they are telling the truth?  

Of course they are telling the truth, they're my parents!  Yes, you are right.  But you are taking their word on faith.  Many things are in play that cause you to believe that you can rest your faith in them (they've been around for years, have great stories to tell about your childhood, etc.), but you are a believer in them and not a knower nevertheless.  It still comes down as a matter of your accepting their testimony with belief, not an actual knowing.  

As for me, I love that the world has been constructed like this.  To me, it's an evidence or even a calling card for an unseen God, pointing to Himself.  It's one of those "built-in's" of the universe that we can't escape.  Just like you can't say, "there is no absolute truth" without self-contradicting because to say "there is no absolute truth" is to make an absolute truth statement, you likewise cannot make an argument that you believe fact and evidence when people of faith are full of hooey.  To the contrary, every single person is a person of great faith and none of us can live or function without it.  

And just as someone with science can make phenomenal arguments with great justifications for their beliefs, so can people of faith (for those that do their homework).  Likewise both can be deconstructed.  

So then, it becomes a matter of what you will have faith in, not a matter of what you know.