Sunday 31 January 2010

Diet and Training

Which is more important? If you want to get big, eat; if you want to get strong, lift! It really is that simple. I'm always confounded listening to my female colleagues - each one of which is always wishing she were a few pounds (stones) lighter.

I've endured tales of everything from diet coke only(!) diets to some crap about a "raisin detox" (not sure what these mysterious - and undetectable - toxins are, nor what good is expected to come of eating 1Kg of raisins every day for a week.


And when I suggest weight training, I'm usually met with looks suggesting I've slept with their sister, mother and cousin, and uploaded the video evidence. Most women seem to think that coming into contact with a barbell or any serious weights will turn them into this:


when in truth, in the absence of androgenic hormone supplementation, the reality is likely to be closer to this:


Every one of the female weightlifters I've trained with at Woking and Crystal palace has looked great. So ladies, forget diet coke and raisins; and follow the simplest of 2-step plans:

1. Eat more.
2. Lift more.

Oh, and feel free to send in "after" pictures :)

Wednesday 20 January 2010

Toro y Moi

Channelling Neon Indian

Monday 18 January 2010

Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ

I'm pretty sure John Piper has lost the ability to write badly. Great book, free download.

Saturday 16 January 2010

Thngs i dnt understnd

youtube comments
why pitchfork reviews hiphop
teh hypostatic union
ppl who listen to radio
RACIESM

Monday 11 January 2010

70 Resolutions

My man Jonathan Edwards was concerned with more than losing weight or "taking more risks:"

1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God's glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriad's of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.

Tuesday 5 January 2010

Who Would Jesus Smack Down?

Conclusion to a generally good article on Dricsoll:
Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.
Amen!!

Avatar

Driscoll linked a great article on the worldview of Cameron's Billion-dollar blockbuster. Much like a pretty girlfriend with nothing upstairs: nice to look at, but you soon get bored and look for something better. Oh, and 3D hurt my eyes >.<


It’s fitting that James Cameron’s “Avatar” arrived in theaters at Christmastime. Like the holiday season itself, the science fiction epic is a crass embodiment of capitalistic excess wrapped around a deeply felt religious message. It’s at once the blockbuster to end all blockbusters, and the Gospel According to James.

But not the Christian Gospel. Instead, “Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.

In Cameron’s sci-fi universe, this communion is embodied by the blue-skinned, enviably slender Na’Vi, an alien race whose idyllic existence on the planet Pandora is threatened by rapacious human invaders. The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

Hollywood keeps returning to these themes because millions of Americans respond favorably to them. From Deepak Chopra to Eckhart Tolle, the “religion and inspiration” section in your local bookstore is crowded with titles pushing a pantheistic message. A recent Pew Forum report on how Americans mix and match theology found that many self-professed Christians hold beliefs about the “spiritual energy” of trees and mountains that would fit right in among the indigo-tinted Na’Vi.

As usual, Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming. The American belief in the essential unity of all mankind, Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s, leads us to collapse distinctions at every level of creation. “Not content with the discovery that there is nothing in the world but a creation and a Creator,” he suggested, democratic man “seeks to expand and simplify his conception by including God and the universe in one great whole.”

Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

At the same time, pantheism opens a path to numinous experience for people uncomfortable with the literal-mindedness of the monotheistic religions — with their miracle-working deities and holy books, their virgin births and resurrected bodies. As the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski noted, attributing divinity to the natural world helps “bring God closer to human experience,” while “depriving him of recognizable personal traits.” For anyone who pines for transcendence but recoils at the idea of a demanding Almighty who interferes in human affairs, this is an ideal combination.

Indeed, it represents a form of religion that even atheists can support. Richard Dawkins has called pantheism “a sexed-up atheism.” (He means that as a compliment.) Sam Harris concluded his polemic “The End of Faith” by rhapsodizing about the mystical experiences available from immersion in “the roiling mystery of the world.” Citing Albert Einstein’s expression of religious awe at the “beauty and sublimity” of the universe, Dawkins allows, “In this sense I too am religious.”

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward — or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it — a deeply tragic one.

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

Monday 4 January 2010

GLOBALWARMINGAGENDA

Was browsing through some old photos; found this bad boy




Gotta love spending trillions lowering carbon emissions in the face of skant evidence linking human activities to rises in average world temperatures. Who needs schools, hospitals or infrastructure, anyway??