The beamishboy has suffered a cruel blow of fate. A minor indiscretion was all it took. I was caught accessing internet in school when I should be in class. The matter was blown out of proportion. Parents were informed. Suspicion of addiction. The usual fake concern by adults for the poor little thing. He needs counselling. Internet addiction is so common among the young. He needs to have restricted access into the internet. Parents are more than eager to cooperate. J has been informed and he will enforce whatever my parents decide. J is a good chap but don't forget, he's a very old man and he won't turn a blind eye.
My parents will draw a timetable for me. J will enforce it. The life as I know it is over.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Portugal
After posting on where one may buy the best gingerbread in the whole world, I thought I should not forget to mention a really great shop in Lisbon that is just across the road from this restaurant. I had a good time in this restaurant more because there was so much water round it. The food was nothing special; it was good but I think I prefer pastries. I'm using this restaurant as a guide to get to my pastry shop which is just across the road from this restaurant.
Sorry, there is a park after you cross the road but it's a small park and you just cut through the park and you'll get to this pastry shop. I can't post a pic of the shop because the beamishboy features too much in the photos. Hehe. But here is the wrapper of the pastries. This shop is really cool. It sells the best egg tarts in the world.
Sorry, there is a park after you cross the road but it's a small park and you just cut through the park and you'll get to this pastry shop. I can't post a pic of the shop because the beamishboy features too much in the photos. Hehe. But here is the wrapper of the pastries. This shop is really cool. It sells the best egg tarts in the world.
The beamishboy loves food!!!
I've posted a photograph of the best meal on earth - steak and kidney pie at the George & Vulture. Now, I'll take my readers to a quiet lonely shop that sells the best gingerbread on this planet. Here's a picture of the shop that I went to one afternoon. I've blocked off J who's just emerged from the shop with a bag of gingerbread he's got for me!!! A little about J whom you'll see more often (blocked off of course). J is a dear friend to me. He used to work for the family before my Grandpa passed away. He now accompanies me to many places that I go to and he will usually be connected to my photos in some way - either he's taking my pics or he's in the photos. He's very old but he's quite a sport and, like me, he loves to travel.
I've posted a photograph of the best meal on earth - steak and kidney pie at the George & Vulture. Now, I'll take my readers to a quiet lonely shop that sells the best gingerbread on this planet. Here's a picture of the shop that I went to one afternoon. I've blocked off J who's just emerged from the shop with a bag of gingerbread he's got for me!!! A little about J whom you'll see more often (blocked off of course). J is a dear friend to me. He used to work for the family before my Grandpa passed away. He now accompanies me to many places that I go to and he will usually be connected to my photos in some way - either he's taking my pics or he's in the photos. He's very old but he's quite a sport and, like me, he loves to travel.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Vegetarianism will make you a vegetable.
Folksies blokesies!!!! The latest earth-shattering research shows that vegetarianism can in fact turn you into a vegetable if it persists long enough. Perhaps not quite a vegetable but your brain can shrink significantly.
You need B12 which is found in milk and dairy products, meat, liver and fish. Booze is also bad for the brain and can cause shrinkage. Being fat is also another factor that can cause shrinkage.
The beamishboy eats meat, liver and fish, drinks milk, does not drink alcohol and is slim. Ergo, the beamishboy has a good brain. Hehe.
Here's the article:
Click here for the link
Brain shrink risk of veggie diet
By JANE SYMONS
You need B12 which is found in milk and dairy products, meat, liver and fish. Booze is also bad for the brain and can cause shrinkage. Being fat is also another factor that can cause shrinkage.
The beamishboy eats meat, liver and fish, drinks milk, does not drink alcohol and is slim. Ergo, the beamishboy has a good brain. Hehe.
Here's the article:
Click here for the link
Brain shrink risk of veggie diet
By JANE SYMONS
TURNING vegetarian could shrink your brain – but Marmite sarnies help protect it.
People with low levels of vitamin B12 are SIX times more likely to suffer brain loss, researchers at Oxford University have discovered.
Vegans and vegetarians — such as Heather Mills, Russell Brand and Big Brother's Chanelle Houghton — are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish.
Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system.
Yeast extracts such as Marmite are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.
The link was discovered by scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87.
When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.
Here Sun Health looks at the science of smart eating.
GO EASY ON THE BOOZE
Brain scans of more than 1,800 people found that people who downed 14 drinks or more a week had 1.6 per cent more brain shrinkage than teetotallers.
Women in their seventies were the most at risk.
Beer does less damage than wine according to a study in Alcohol and Alcoholism.
Researchers found that the hippocampus - the part of the brain that stores memories — was 10 per cent smaller in beer drinkers than those who stuck to wine.
And don’t inhale, cannabis has been shown to have the same brain-rotting effect.
EAT LESS
Being overweight or obese is linked to brain loss, Swedish researchers discovered.
Scans of around 300 women found that those with brain shrink had an average body mass index of 27
And for every one point increase in their BMI the loss rose by 13 to 16 per cent.
A BMI 25 to 30 is classed as overweight, above 30 is clinically obese. Calculate your BMI
Dr Deborah Gustafson of University Hospital in Göteborg says obesity increases the risk of high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, which are both thought to contribute to brain drain.
She adds: “Obesity may also increase the secretion of cortisol, which could lead to atrophy.”
GET FISHY
The omega-3 oils found in fish reduce the risk of dementia and other mental disorders says Fernando Gómez-Pinilla of the University of California, Los Angeles.
He says they increase flexibility in synapses in the brain - the bits that transmit information - and boost memory and learning.
A Brief History of the Church
I have been asked many times how the church began. A common question asked by RCs is what church did the Apostles found? They look expectantly in your eyes hoping that you would say "The RC church of course!" but that would be a dreadful untruth. Many RCs are under the misconception that because Protestantism only came about in the Middle Ages, the Protestant church couldn't have been founded by the Apostles.
What they fail to understand is that to the Apostles, it's the teachings that are important. St Paul writes that he who comes to you with a different gospel and different teachings from what are taught by the Apostles, let him be accursed.
What then did the Apostles teach? What better way to look at the Apostles' teachings than to look at what they wrote.
In a Christian forum, I happened to write a short history of the church. Scriptural quotations came from my memory but they are relatively accurate. I thought it best to reproduce what I wrote in this blog so that I can refer future inquirers here. Here it is:
Jesus' first disciples started house churches. They met in homes and carried out the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. The manner of worship, the doctrines and practices were all clearly written and detailed for us in the New Testament.
The churches flourished. They were not referred to as a single church under a single man. They were called churches. That is why addresses were made to the Seven Churches, etc (as in the Book of Revelation). But the churches were under severe persecution by some Roman emperors. The early christians in these churches stood firm to their ground and many were martyred.
It is difficult to say that there were no departures from apostolic teaching in the early church. Even Paul made it clear that there were threats from various quarters that were preaching a different gospel.
Then came the conversion of the Roman emperor. It was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, persecution stopped. But all temple priests converted immediately and many joined the ranks of churches formed under Roman rule. You can't blame them. They had no vocation apart from religion and since the official religion had changed, they became overnight "Christians". Anyway, this was a common occurrence in the ancient world.
Even before the conversion of the Emperor, there were seeds of heretical teachings. These can be seen in the non-canonical works - writings that were not accepted as divinely inspired because they did not meet the criteria for the canon - they may not have met the "rule of faith", were of dubious apostolic origin or were not accepted by the people of God as genuine. One thread of the "wrong" teachings are the natural human need of a motherly figure. Most religions have goddesses. Christianity is starkly patriarchical. One of the Marys could have been chosen: Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalen. Naturally, Mary the mother of Jesus could evoke stronger emotions. She was there at his cross and she was, after all, the mother.
A sign that even before the conversion of the Roman emperor, this need for a mother had germinated to the practice of venerating her can be seen in the non-canonical/heretical gospel called the Gospel of James. The Gospel of James is the only book in which Mary was elevated to a height totally unknown in the canonical books and venerated. Some people today try not to draw attention to the fact that the Gospel of James is as heretical as the Gospel of Thomas, etc by calling it the Protoevangelion of James. But make no mistake about it - it was called the Gospel of James since the earliest times. But all are agreed that this book is non-canonical.
The NT books on the other hand are very un-Marian in a sense. The epistles did not breathe a word about Mary. The only mere mention of Mary appears in the Gospels and for good reason: she was bearing Christ. In other parts of the Gospels where she makes an appearance, it's usually to show how misguided she was. Examples are:
1. The temple scene. Mary and Joseph cannot find the 12-year-old Jesus and finally finds him discoursing with the Temple Priests. When Mary remonstrates, Jesus retorts, "Do you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"
2. The gospels say that Jesus' family - including his brothers want him to go home to presumably Galilee because many even think he has gone mad. On one occasion, his Disciples tell Jesus that His mother is at the door asking to see Him. Jesus replies, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" Then turning to his disciples, Jesus says, "Those who listen to me are my mother, my brothers and sisters".
3. A woman in the crowd shouts out to Jesus, "Blessed are the breasts that gave thee suckle and the womb that gave thee birth." Jesus replies, "Rather, blessed are those who do the will of God". This appears in Luke's gospel.
The cult of Mary was a natural progression of our human need for a soft motherly touch to our otherwise patriarchical faith. But it cannot be considered even remotely apostolic.
It was easy after Rome had converted for this cult of Mary to flourish. And flourished it did. First she Mary became "Mother of God" or the Theotokos. That was OK because presumably, the thrust of the whole idea was to stress on the divine nature of Jesus. Any objection to the name for Mary is countered with the emotional assertion that Jesus is God and anyone who refuses to call Mary the Mother of God is in fact denying divinity to Jesus. Century after century sees the slow departure of the church from the original teachings of the Apostles. Mary is soon crowned the Queen of Heaven. She becomes co-redeemer with Christ because didn't she bear Jesus in the first place. She becomes sinless (as Christ is). She is declared not to have been tainted with the original sin. As if that's not enough, she is bodily assumed into heaven (that's what Assumption means) and suffers no death.
There are many other departures from apostolic teachings by the church and I've only named one. The selling of indulgences to enrich the coffers of the church is one. Of course with the Reformation, these departures are highlighted and a call is made for Christians to return to apostolic teachings.
Some will say, "But Jesus promises that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church".
That verse if correctly interpreted simply means "Death will have no power over Christians". Gates of Hades is the common phrase that means death. The church in the NT always refers to Christians and never church officials.
But even if we take the church to be church officials and the Gates of Hades to be the powers of the Devil, that promise has still been fulfilled. That promise does not mean that Christians will never be deceived by false teachings. The epistles of Paul show us that there were many false teachings floating about then and by important figures too. It does not mean that the church (ie Christians) can never be deceived and for any length of time. But if that interpretation is to be taken, it does mean that ultimately, the truth of God will prevail and not the powers of the Devil. As we have seen in history, that promise is fulfilled with the Reformation and the attention of the whole of Christendom is turned to the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles and the importance of reading the NT by the common people is emphasised when it was once forbidden or discouraged.
That is a brief summary of the history of the church by the beamishboy.
What they fail to understand is that to the Apostles, it's the teachings that are important. St Paul writes that he who comes to you with a different gospel and different teachings from what are taught by the Apostles, let him be accursed.
What then did the Apostles teach? What better way to look at the Apostles' teachings than to look at what they wrote.
In a Christian forum, I happened to write a short history of the church. Scriptural quotations came from my memory but they are relatively accurate. I thought it best to reproduce what I wrote in this blog so that I can refer future inquirers here. Here it is:
Jesus' first disciples started house churches. They met in homes and carried out the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles. The manner of worship, the doctrines and practices were all clearly written and detailed for us in the New Testament.
The churches flourished. They were not referred to as a single church under a single man. They were called churches. That is why addresses were made to the Seven Churches, etc (as in the Book of Revelation). But the churches were under severe persecution by some Roman emperors. The early christians in these churches stood firm to their ground and many were martyred.
It is difficult to say that there were no departures from apostolic teaching in the early church. Even Paul made it clear that there were threats from various quarters that were preaching a different gospel.
Then came the conversion of the Roman emperor. It was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, persecution stopped. But all temple priests converted immediately and many joined the ranks of churches formed under Roman rule. You can't blame them. They had no vocation apart from religion and since the official religion had changed, they became overnight "Christians". Anyway, this was a common occurrence in the ancient world.
Even before the conversion of the Emperor, there were seeds of heretical teachings. These can be seen in the non-canonical works - writings that were not accepted as divinely inspired because they did not meet the criteria for the canon - they may not have met the "rule of faith", were of dubious apostolic origin or were not accepted by the people of God as genuine. One thread of the "wrong" teachings are the natural human need of a motherly figure. Most religions have goddesses. Christianity is starkly patriarchical. One of the Marys could have been chosen: Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalen. Naturally, Mary the mother of Jesus could evoke stronger emotions. She was there at his cross and she was, after all, the mother.
A sign that even before the conversion of the Roman emperor, this need for a mother had germinated to the practice of venerating her can be seen in the non-canonical/heretical gospel called the Gospel of James. The Gospel of James is the only book in which Mary was elevated to a height totally unknown in the canonical books and venerated. Some people today try not to draw attention to the fact that the Gospel of James is as heretical as the Gospel of Thomas, etc by calling it the Protoevangelion of James. But make no mistake about it - it was called the Gospel of James since the earliest times. But all are agreed that this book is non-canonical.
The NT books on the other hand are very un-Marian in a sense. The epistles did not breathe a word about Mary. The only mere mention of Mary appears in the Gospels and for good reason: she was bearing Christ. In other parts of the Gospels where she makes an appearance, it's usually to show how misguided she was. Examples are:
1. The temple scene. Mary and Joseph cannot find the 12-year-old Jesus and finally finds him discoursing with the Temple Priests. When Mary remonstrates, Jesus retorts, "Do you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"
2. The gospels say that Jesus' family - including his brothers want him to go home to presumably Galilee because many even think he has gone mad. On one occasion, his Disciples tell Jesus that His mother is at the door asking to see Him. Jesus replies, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" Then turning to his disciples, Jesus says, "Those who listen to me are my mother, my brothers and sisters".
3. A woman in the crowd shouts out to Jesus, "Blessed are the breasts that gave thee suckle and the womb that gave thee birth." Jesus replies, "Rather, blessed are those who do the will of God". This appears in Luke's gospel.
The cult of Mary was a natural progression of our human need for a soft motherly touch to our otherwise patriarchical faith. But it cannot be considered even remotely apostolic.
It was easy after Rome had converted for this cult of Mary to flourish. And flourished it did. First she Mary became "Mother of God" or the Theotokos. That was OK because presumably, the thrust of the whole idea was to stress on the divine nature of Jesus. Any objection to the name for Mary is countered with the emotional assertion that Jesus is God and anyone who refuses to call Mary the Mother of God is in fact denying divinity to Jesus. Century after century sees the slow departure of the church from the original teachings of the Apostles. Mary is soon crowned the Queen of Heaven. She becomes co-redeemer with Christ because didn't she bear Jesus in the first place. She becomes sinless (as Christ is). She is declared not to have been tainted with the original sin. As if that's not enough, she is bodily assumed into heaven (that's what Assumption means) and suffers no death.
There are many other departures from apostolic teachings by the church and I've only named one. The selling of indulgences to enrich the coffers of the church is one. Of course with the Reformation, these departures are highlighted and a call is made for Christians to return to apostolic teachings.
Some will say, "But Jesus promises that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church".
That verse if correctly interpreted simply means "Death will have no power over Christians". Gates of Hades is the common phrase that means death. The church in the NT always refers to Christians and never church officials.
But even if we take the church to be church officials and the Gates of Hades to be the powers of the Devil, that promise has still been fulfilled. That promise does not mean that Christians will never be deceived by false teachings. The epistles of Paul show us that there were many false teachings floating about then and by important figures too. It does not mean that the church (ie Christians) can never be deceived and for any length of time. But if that interpretation is to be taken, it does mean that ultimately, the truth of God will prevail and not the powers of the Devil. As we have seen in history, that promise is fulfilled with the Reformation and the attention of the whole of Christendom is turned to the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles and the importance of reading the NT by the common people is emphasised when it was once forbidden or discouraged.
That is a brief summary of the history of the church by the beamishboy.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Booker Shortlist has been announced. Have a look at it. A pity Sir Salman Rushdie didn't make it beyond the Longlist. I'm glad Amitav Ghosh is in. I just got his The Hungry Tide and I think he's a great writer.
Will the beamishboy see his name on the Booker Longlist next year? Let me check with Faber and Faber, my publishers. Hehe. It's always Faber and Faber, isn't it? They publish all my Lit books anyway.
Will the beamishboy see his name on the Booker Longlist next year? Let me check with Faber and Faber, my publishers. Hehe. It's always Faber and Faber, isn't it? They publish all my Lit books anyway.
Monday, September 8, 2008
I have a few questions on underage porn after reading this on the BBC. Would I be guilty of producing underage porn if I took pics of myself with my own camera? Would I be charged and convicted? If I posted the pics online (not that I would), would that be disseminating porn? Isn't the law an ass? Isn't this another example of the subjugation of young people by self-appointed adults? It's a crime for me to take pics of myself! Wow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)