Let’s think about food first and the fear of artificial additives. What exactly is an artificial flavoring, for instance? Well, the short answer is that it is a flavoring produced in a laboratory or factory, rather than one that comes from a plant growing in a field. Well enough. But is there any real physical difference between an artificial flavor and a naturally produced flavor?

Depends.

For instance, about 200-300 chemical compounds are responsible for the flavor and odor of ripe peaches. By contrast, artificial flavors are at best a simple blend of 10 to 20 chemical compounds. But here’s something that those who worry about the “artificial” flavors fail to realize. Those 10 to 20 chemical compounds that are used to make the artificial peach flavor are identical in chemical composition to those same ten or twenty out of the 300 that appear in real peaches. The only difference is that the artificial flavor is missing the other 170 to 270 chemicals that a peach naturally has. Which is why the artificial flavor may not be as rich or full or as tasty as the real thing. But dangerous? A threat to health? Not at all.

The only difference between an “artificial” chemical and a “natural” chemical is where it was made. Think of it this way: each molecule of water is a compound of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. Whether that water molecule falls from the sky or whether you mix a test tube of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas (as I remember doing in one of my high school chemistry classes) what you have in either case is simply water. There’s no way to tell “natural” water apart from “manufactured” water because there is no difference.

The number of chemicals responsible for flavor is considerable. More than 4000 different, naturally occurring, volatile flavor compounds have been identified to date. All the food companies do then is manufacture these chemicals, chemicals that are exactly the same in molecular structure to those that occur naturally in food anyhow. Unfortunately, there are rarely common names for the esoteric stuff that peaches manufacture inside themselves. So if a scientist makes the chemical, rather than a peach, the label has to say “gamma-undecalactone” instead of “sweet, fruity, peachy” flavor. “Benzaldehyde” must go on the label instead of “almond flavor”. And “Methyl salicylate” is printed instead of “wintergreen.”

Likewise, people worry unduly about electronic gadgets like their cell phones, forgetting that the shiny yellow thing in the daytime sky pumps out more radiation in a second than their cell phone will in a year. If they stand in the sunlight for an hour, they’ll get a nice red sunburn. But their ears will never glow a bit if they spend all day talking to Aunt Mildred on their cell phone.

Light bulbs actually pose a greater cancer risk than cell phones. It’s just basic physics—and common sense. The radiation from a cell phone is lower in energy than the electro-magnetic radiation given off by a light bulb. Light is electro-magnetic radiation, but in a band that we can see. The emissions of a cell phone are just a frequency of light that we can’t see – and it is a much lower-energy form of that light.

Everything in the universe gives off electro-magnetic radiation in proportion to its temperature. The hotter it is, the higher the frequency it gives off. Objects in the temperature range of the Earth give off infrared radiation, which is more energetic than radio waves. That’s why infrared is called “heat radiation.” Technically all radiation is heat radiation, but infrared corresponds to the range of heat we usually experience. Hotter things like light bulbs and stars give off visible light.

Everything around you, including your own body (at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit), is giving off electro-magnetic radiation that’s more energetic than the kind given off by electronic devices. That is an undeniable physical fact. So it’s just not logical to claim that the lower-energy radiation from a cell phone is more dangerous than the sun that will give you a nasty burn in less than a single afternoon.

So, just relax and enjoy life. You are safer and healthier than your ancestors and your chances of dying of anything are lot less than theirs were.

–Douglas Adams

The liberal argues that a violent society is to blame for the gunshot deaths of students on various campuses across America. If only there were more laws regulating guns, or better yet, if guns were banned altogether, then the problems would go away. Likewise, the conservative argues that sex on television or the Internet is corrupting the children of America, and if only such things were banned, or at the very least severely restricted by warning labels and ratings systems, then the problems would go away.

How a person approaches the dilemmas of society will depend on his or her conception of sin. If he or she believes that human beings are essentially good, or at worst neutral — neither good nor bad — then he or she will imagine that society’s problems are the consequence of a tainted environment. If such is correct, then it follows reasonably that if the environment is altered, then the behavior of individuals will change for the better.

Both liberal and conservative are operating from this same flawed point of view. The only difference is the targets of their righteous indignation. They both blame society, rather than the individual for his actions.

Why?

It is easier to pass laws than to convert individuals.

But since when have laws prevented criminal activity? Does the speed limit really have that much meaning for people? Do laws against murder mean there are no more murderers? One might not suggest that there should be no laws against such behavior, but to think that the laws will end or even correct the behavior is wrongheaded. Yet the attempts to ban, outlaw and regulate never end, even though they ultimately do not solve the underlying fault. Giving morphine to someone whose appendix has burst does ease her pain, but nothing has been done to solve her basic problem.

Fundamentally, it seems that many people fail to grasp the concept of sin. The idea of sin as an inner force, an inherent condition, a controlling power, is generally forgotten, if it was ever known. Christians, both right and left, tend to think in terms of “sins” — that is, individual wrong acts. “Sins” are thus something external and concrete, and can be logically separated from the person. “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” With this concept as a foundation, if an individual has not done anything wrong (that is, committed an external act of evil), then he pictures himself as good. There is no thought of sin at all.

For most of those on the right and the left, sins are those things that only other people do. Thus, they become sin groupies. There are fan clubs for certain sins. Certain sins are stars, and they get all the attention, and serve endlessly as great ways to raise funds. Violence in society, signified by handguns is certainly a great money maker for good causes. Abortion. Homosexuality. Drugs. Greed (especially corporate). All these have huge fan clubs and raise large amounts of cash for good causes.

And nothing gets better. Christians, whether liberal or conservative, are distracted by good causes, spending time and resources to get more laws passed, hoping thereby to solve the problems of society, forgetting that the problems of society are the consequence of individuals who are sinners in need of a savior, who are individually making faulty choices because they are sinners. To solve society’s problems, the church must work at preaching the gospel, giving help to those in need, taking in the unwanted and unlovely. Passing another law, getting more regulation, having more labels, is not going to do it. Christians wear themselves out, waste their resources, fight shadows, and the real problems go unsolved and the suffering goes on and on.

You want to change the world? There’s a whole world in a single human soul. Do what Jesus asked us to do: be witnesses to his sacrifice, his resurrection, and the impact it can have on a life. Feed a hungry person. Visit the suffering. Spend time with the lonely outcast. Listen. Take in a homeless, parentless child. Be kind. Touch someone with the love of God. Don’t worry about what the neighbors might think (whether good or bad). Do what is right regardless of how someone else treats you. That will change society – has changed society – more than all the laws in all the nations in all the world.

Unfortunately, it’s a lot of work, and pretty messy and inconvenient besides. You might get your hands dirty.

I found an article that argued very forcefully that Jesus, without a doubt, would vote for the Democratic Party candidate for President–if he was a United States citizen today. Shortly afterwards, I came upon an article that argued just as certainly the opposite: that Jesus, as an American, would be sure to vote Republican. Doubtless, if I had the time, I could find a Green Party Jesus and a Libertarian Party Jesus. PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is convinced that Jesus would be a vegetarian.

It reminds me very much of the so-called “search for the historical Jesus” of which the Jesus Seminar is the current media darling. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) was one of the first of that merry bunch back in the late nineteenth century. He even wrote a book entitled, The Search for the Historical Jesus. The one thing that has been said of such research is that the searchers inevitably wind up finding out that Jesus looks remarkably like themselves in a mirror. He has their attitudes, their beliefs, and their approach to life. The search tells us little about Jesus, but a lot about those on the hunt.

So it is, it seems to me, with those who want to convince me that Jesus would vote a certain way. Remarkably, Jesus seems to always vote exactly the way the author of the article would vote. As someone said, we have a tendency to make the gods in our own image.

I think it is nonsensical, foolish and insufferably arrogant to suggest that a historical figure would vote or argue a certain way regarding a modern question, a question on which the individual in view never considered nor made any pronouncements. To try to extrapolate from what they did say to how we think they’d argue today about a given topic, it seems to me, is remarkably presumptuous.

How can we be certain we understand and know a historical figure well enough to be able to put words in his or her mouth? Some people wear bracelets with initials that stand for the phrase “What would Jesus Do?” I suppose such bracelets are harmless. They’re designed to keep their wearers from misbehaving. But they remain, in my mind at least, a bit peculiar.
First, do you really need to literally wear your conscience on your sleeve? And second, do you really know Jesus well enough to be certain what he’d think about you eating that donut instead of the bran muffin?

So why imagine we can tell how he’d vote? Especially, considering that our vote is supposed to be private. Do you think Jesus would even tell us who he picked?

On the other hand, back in the first century the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Rome that “there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13:1). If that’s the case, then God chooses who the rulers will be anyhow.

So how would Jesus vote? Just look at the election results the day after and find out.

–unknown

–Martin Amis, a British novelist, essayist and short story writer

As a child, I remember occasionally trying to drink a cup of coffee. My great aunt Loule would often drink coffee with milk and sugar in it, and when my mom and I would visit, I would sometimes ask her for some. Dutifully she would comply, and invariably I would not enjoy the experience.

The same lack of enjoyment resulted whenever I asked for some coffee from my mom when we were at home. Knowing that I didn’t like it, she was usually reluctant to give me any, but occasionally she would relent and so I’d get a cup. I would drink only a little bit. I can’t say I every learned to like it. I think I wanted it only because the adults in my life would drink it and I wanted to imagine myself grown up.

When I finally left for college, I arrived in a place surrounded by people—fellow college students—who drank coffee regularly. So I dutifully made the effort again, and just as before, found myself not much appreciating the beverage. I would sometimes make the instant variety in my room with an olive green electric pot that I had. But I found I never liked the result. I had far better luck with the Lipton instant soup.

At the end of my freshman year of college, the opportunity arose for me to travel to Israel to work on a kibbutz. A kibbutz is a communal farm, usually inhabited by about three hundred people. The particular kibbutz I was assigned was located just south of the Sea of Galilee on the border with Jordan. It had been established in the 1930s by Jewish people who had come from Romania. During the summer of America’s bicentennial celebration when I was there, the major crops grown on that kibbutz were bananas, olives, citrus fruits, dates, and alfalfa. They also raised dairy cows and chickens. And there was a small engine valve factory.

Being a farm, we had to get up by 4 AM six days a week to go to work. The work day lasted until noon. When we first got to the field we were assigned on a given day, we would always gather in the workshed, where there was a pot for boiling water, along with hard cookies. Every morning we would fill handleless glass Pyrex cups about a quarter full of finely-ground coffee. Into the mug we then poured the boiling water. A stir or two of the spoon, and then I would wait for the coffee grounds to settle. By that time the water in the cup had turned dark black and the small shed would be filled with the aroma of strong coffee. After drinking that, sometimes with sugar and sometimes not, we would head out to the fields to do our day’s labor.

Over the course of that summer, I drank a lot of that thick coffee. One had to be careful, when drinking, not to go too far. Otherwise one would be picking coffee grounds out of one’s teeth. Instead, one had to be careful to leave the sludge, like mud, on the bottom of the cup.

I found the taste of this kibbutz coffee to be foul. But it was all we had at four in the morning to go with the hard cookies, and so I consumed it day in and day out. At 8 AM each day we would leave the fields and head back to the communal farm for a more normal breakfast, where we had hard boiled eggs, yogurt, thick French bread, butter and date jelly—along with either coffee or tea to drink.

Lunch and dinner were mostly the same choices for food, with the addition of noodles, soup and occasionally chicken. And the drink choices were constant: coffee or tea.

So all summer long, I drank enormous quantities of coffee and got to where I could tolerate it.

At the end of that summer, I was twenty pounds lighter, tanned, and in great physical shape. I returned to America aboard British Airways and they served us coffee with our in flight meal. To my surprise, I discovered I really, really liked the coffee they served us. The contrast between properly brewed coffee—even airline coffee—and what I had been guzzling all summer in Israel—was so great, that for the first time in my life I discovered that I actually liked the taste of coffee.

Ever since, I have been a fan of coffee and consume at least a cup every morning. In fact, I usually drink two or three. People today know me as a happy coffee addict.

–Fyodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment