Recipe – Homemade Junk Noodle Soup

Standard

The noodle soup packages you get from the stores are the staple for bachelors (and maybe teens, when left to their own devices). Given that these are packed with sodium and god-only-knows what else, I don’t know how I survived this far…

And so, I came up with an alternative. I believe, one day, there will be a bust in my honour, and maybe even a Nobel Peace Prize, for coming up with this recipe…or maybe not…


Ingredients:

Directions:

  • This is, after all, JUNK FOOD, and so, it has to be prepared in a MICROWAVE OVEN 🙂 – mine is 1200W. Use a microwave safe bowl.
    • I cook at Power Level 7 for 4:44
    • Let it sit for a few minutes, and then cook it at Power Level 6 for 2:22 then give it a little longer to soften the noodles.

Comments:

  • The Ancient Grains noodles provide 12 gms of protein per cup. The daily requirement is 0.36 gms per lb body weight, so if you weigh 100 lbs, you should consume at least 36 gms of protein from various sources, every day.
  • The Ancient Grains noodles provide 8 gms of fibre/cup. The daily requirement is about 25 gms per day for women/ 38 gms per day for men.
  • The more one uses Vegetable broth, the more the World’s chickens and steers will like humans :).
  • The health benefits of cayenne pepper are amazing! I strongly suggest following the links above.
  • Have a great day and stay healthy!!!

Father and Son

Standard

Father and Son: Jesus was a Liberal-Dad was a Conservative (an outside-the-box speculation on the existence of two Testaments, having contrary messages, but followed by the adherents of the same religion).

Headline – The Heavenly Standard – 3 B.C.E – God the Father and Jesus have Falling-Out

Christians and bible scholars have never read the ‘Heavenly Standard’ the official newspaper of the Heavenly Realm because it does not exist, but if it did, for the purpose of this essay, let us assume they would recognize God-the-Father’s side as the Old Testament and Jesus’ side as the New Testament.

The followers of Christianity conclude that both sides are right because they are somehow both the same ‘person.’ The early and medieval church fathers had expended considerable effort (and unbridled imagination) over the centuries to reconcile the message of the Old Testament with that of the New Testament by cherry-picking and reinterpreting phrases in the OT as being references to Jesus—a tradition that is alive and well in the present day. You can familiarize yourself with what either side has to say in their own defense, just get a bible.

there are also several free versions if you have access to a Kindle or to an Amazon Fire tablet.

Now, here’s an alternate spin on the arrival of Jesus and its significance:

You are the son of a celebrity father. He is well known, revered, feared, loved—by everyone who has ever heard of him, and in the case of your father, it happens to be everyone. Dad has been a pillar and leader of your community for what seems like forever to you. But he is your dad. You are his son. As a young child, you admired your father to no end and for you, there was no fault in him. Then, as a teenager, you found yourself butting heads with him continually. But he is no ordinary father, and you are no ordinary son. Needless to say, the generational tête-à-têtes you two engaged in would have been of ‘biblical proportions,’ and you would end up leaving the house in a huff or off the end of your father’s boot, until you both had a chance to cool off. You love your dad and your dad loves you—the generational confrontation is natural to all of Earth’s species, and (who can say?) perhaps heavenly ones as well.
Whether it be a heavenly or earthly context, is it not fair to speculate that the generation-gap narrative will play itself out in the same way? When the world the children are growing in is the world sculpted by their parents, the child must, eventually, step out into the world and build it anew, according to his/her own specifications. In the home of their parents, there is no room for their new ideas. New ways of doing things are also unwelcome to folks used to doing things for so long a certain way—and so, inevitably, the collision occurs and the generation coming into its own is obliged to do its thing somewhere else or try to become masters of their parents’ house.
According to lore, one of God-the-Father’s ‘sons,’ Lucifer, tried to do just that—take over the family home rather than move out; this was wrong on so many levels, and we all know where that got him.
But we’re not talking about the black sheep of the family. We’re talking about Jesus. And we’re talking about the message of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Tanakh) and how it differs from the message of the New Testament. Taken together, the two comprise the scriptural canon of my own religious tradition. As it stands, folks have ostensibly reconciled both, even though the respective motifs of the Old and New Testaments are quite different.
The over all message of the Old Testament is salvation through good works: do good, and you will be rewarded with eternal life. The superordinate message of the New Testament is salvation through faith: believe in the Christian god-Trinity, and you will be given eternal life. This includes accepting the impossibility of two distinct personalities/consciousnesses, existing in complete separation from one another (or Jesus would never have had to pray to ‘God-the-Father’ since he was ‘God-the-Father’) existing inside the same person.
Whether they are or are not the same person, how can we account for such a change in the message attributed to an immutable god such as God-the-Father is, whose word must likewise be unchangeable? Could it be that the differences which revisionist theologians across the intervening centuries worked so hard to reconcile is nothing more than the change in attitude one observes in the passing of one generation to the next?
For any child or teen gifted with the heart Jesus so plainly possessed , and every child starts out that way, how frightfully wrong the world of adults must appear to them. The world is the way it is because we adults, generation after generation, accept the world’s insanity by being too busy with making a living to do anything about what is wrong with it. We become inured, jaded; and our hearts harden toward others in response to the unremitting stresses of modern life.
How frightfully wrong the world appeared to us as teenagers, but thank god I was a teenager when Justin Trudeau’s father was our Prime Minister. Albeit the threat of nuclear war and environmental catastrophe existed sufficient to give us nightmares, I also lived full of pride with being a Canadian—you only had to sew a Canadian flag on your denim jacket and people would like you and look out for you, wherever in the world you happened to go. True or not, it was how we thought back then. If it were not for Pierre Trudeau, I could never have gone to university, and the only time there were police officers at our high school was for the dance, and that was to catch the drinkers and smokers; no one ever thought to bring a knife or a gun to school in those days. Compared to what today’s teens are encountering, life was very, very good; and we felt safe.
The world’s of the OT and NT, right through to our day, feature: might trumps right, haves and have-nots, callousness toward migrant families trying to escape war, famine, rape… We are all the children of God, aren’t we? If not, who made us? If we are god’s children—and we most assuredly are—why did the Amalekite and Amorite men, women, and children have to be slaughtered to accommodate the Hebrews in the Holy Land? Would there not have been enough room for all of them?
If Moses and the Hebrew scribes got it written down precisely as God the Father spoke it to them, and if the word of god is immutable, and if Jesus and the Father are independent of one another like human fathers and sons are, they would have found it difficult to live under the same roof, big as Heaven’s must be , given the seriousness of their differences. But things were no better for Jesus on Earth: Jesus was killed in the name of the old ways while his followers martyred themselves in favour of the new. If Jesus and the Father are one consciousness, then there is a serious disconnect going on in the Mind of God to the degree that ‘god’ is evidently of two separate and distinct minds, each operating independently of the other. No one is going to buy that one. I believe that is a recipe for insanity, not for god’s state of mind.
And so Jesus, son that he is, has had enough, packs his bags, and heads for Mother’s house (Mother Earth). God-knows Jesus is going to run into trouble if he keeps talking like that, but good father that he is, God-the-Father is going to allow Jesus to run off and learn his lesson, and, after he’s stepped on enough pricklies, open the door to heaven (in Jesus’ case, through crucifixion) and let him back in.
If it can be said of the Old Testament that it was inspired by the attitude of the ‘Father,’ then, it follows, the New Testament was inspired by the attitude of the ‘Son,’ expressed by Paul and the Gospels. But what exactly was the Son rebelling against? This is where things morph from matters of ‘faith’ to matters of human society, and all of the politics going hand-in-hand.
Jesus advocated against:
• The oppression of the weak by the strong, especially the oppression of women and children, the poor (economic oppression), the socially disenfranchised(the Indigenous, the homeless).
• Poverty and excess (wealth inequality).
• The harshness of the Law(the only thing immutable about it was punishment).
• The ‘double standard.’ Just how many times does Jesus use the word ‘hypocrite’ in the bible?
• Violence in any form, with the exception of turning over the odd table .

Now, the Conservative party has nothing at all to do with the erstwhile Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The erstwhile PCs aspired to progress from a basis of established tradition and would assimilate religious tradition into their politics as a matter of course. When the cons from somewhere out west took over the right from the PC party which was decimated after the Mulroney years, they inherited the tradition of support from regular church-going folks. They had not, I’ll warrant, inherited the heart of the church goers, nor do they seem to have such a heart, or they would not allow poverty or lying to folks.

But, do not just take my word on this, think about it. Do you suppose Jesus, were he to cast a vote in the Canadian federal election, would vote for the Harper or Scheer Conservatives? Or Trudeau’s Liberals? The NDP? Some other party? For now, let us have a look at the values of the biblical Jesus, one by one, with a view to how they match up with the approach and attitudes of Canada’s two largest political parties, and the reader may then draw their own conclusions with respect to who would have Jesus’ vote:

On Economic and social oppression:

The Liberals– Child Tax Benefit
Lowered the retirement age to 65 (the Harper- cons had raised it to 67)
Universal healthcare and CPP to complement OAS: (That was Liberal PM Lester B.                                                                               Pearson, motivated by the NDP’s Tommy Douglas)
Support the recommendations of the MMIWG enquiry and reconciliation

The Cons– Wealth inequality is all over the news, it is just that I don’t ever hear the cons talking about it. They are too busy with Trudeau-bashing-this will not fill the stomachs of hungry children, but the money they are spending on attack ads would go a long way with folks who aren’t earning enough to get by.

On Poverty and Excess:

Liberals– increased taxes on the wealthier Canadians

Cons– decreased taxes, but this strategy is of benefit commensurate with income: the more you earn and have to invest, the more you will save in taxes.

On the Harshness of the Law:

Liberals-the judge has discretion in sentencing

Cons-mandatory sentencing, anyone?

On The Double Standard:

Liberals– are they wilfully guilty of hypocrisy, or are they limited with respect to the rate at which they can make changes? Rome wasn’t built in a day, and if you are obliged to swim against the current, or ‘run against the wind,’ you aren’t going to get to your destination as quickly as you’d want.

Cons-the Harper con approach was that of a Hollywood Western movie maker: the main street looks authentic, trouble is, it’s all façade. With respect to social concerns, they just go through the motions, like employees who want a paycheck but do not want to have to work too hard for it, hoping the boss (or the voter) doesn’t notice.

On Violence in Any Form:

Liberals-Lester B. Pearson: Peacekeeping was just one of his many progressive and enduring legacies.

Cons-Under the Harper cons, our military appeared to drift away from their traditional (since Pearson) role as peacekeeper. Harper, no longer prime minister, thought it meet to sign off on an advertisement in the NYT congratulating Trump for pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.

On Tolerance:

Liberals– are actively promoting inclusion.

Cons– in their various forms aligned on the right, pay lip service to inclusion and diversity while they extol the virtues of the white patriarchal society.

 

In conclusion:

I confess to be a liberal supporter most of the time. I don’t always agree with what they do in government, however PM Justin Trudeau, despite his faults, has shown himself to be a leader who is unafraid to lead and who knows the way forward. He has had one term. He is going to get better as he settles into the job. The conservative philosophy preserves tradition and promises a return to ‘the good old days,’ however one would do well to ask, ‘The good old days, for whom?’
One in seven Canadians will tell you, ‘Not for the poor.’
To have a cohesive nation, you must remove the barriers that divide us. As human beings, we should not be divided on the basis of religion because there is, ultimately, only one Creator and humans are purported to have been created in the ‘image of god.’ Neither should Canadians live in division, since there is only one kind of Canadian citizen. The land which is called ‘Canada’ is land to all who live within its boundaries. The land provides to all who live within its boundaries without reference to gender, religion, sexual orientation, economic standing…you name it, Canada the nation has it all covered or it would not be a nation.

When anyone denies/excludes a Canadian, they deny Canada. Our tolerance of poverty is a case-in-point…

This is not who we are…

The God of the Old Testament

Standard

I am beginning to wonder about the ‘god’ Moses met on the top of Mt. Sinai.

The Gnostics believed that the Hebrew god was actually a lesser god who screwed up when he made the Earth and man, and not the creator of the Universe. The creator god is the One that all of the major Faiths claim to worship, albeit they name the creator according to their ways.

Jesus overruled that god in ancient Judea. Unlike his ‘father’, Jesus was not a transactional type. He said things like ‘turn the other cheek’ instead of ‘an eye for an eye.’ He broke bread and drank wine in anticipation of the sacrifice of his own life, one he was about to make, voluntarily, to the Hebrew god. The Hebrew god, by comparison, had asked Abraham to sacrifice his firstborn Isaac, in order to demonstrate his loyalty. Whereas Jesus was said to go around healing folks and driving the demons out, all for free (but nice if you gave him and his apostles a home-cooked meal) the Hebrew god had this thing with covenants: if you do this for me, I’ll do that for you…sort of thing.

All very transactional. All very egoic. I dunno, but my mom never said, ‘I’ll cook supper if you guys behave.’ If she had, we would have all starved.

Jesus was entirely different fish altogether from his papa. So much so, the Gnostics did not believe that the Hebrew god was the one who sent Jesus or for that matter, was the creator of the Universe.

Ego is what could do unto others what no one would want others to do to them. The spirit of ego contravenes the spirit of the Golden Rule. Here, I am referring to the Hebrew god’s instruction to the Hebrews to kill every man, woman, and child in the Promised Land, in order to make room for the Hebrews and their new nation. No one would be stupid enough to go to all the trouble of making different kinds of humans, only to have one kind destroy the others; how is it we do not give our creator the same credit? And if we do, then we have to conclude that the Gnostics got it right, and that the god who fooled the Hebrews is the spirit that is bound to the Earth; to wit, Lucifer.

There is indeed one creator god, and the Hebrews did find him. It is just that god has two aspects, the spirit and the ego (aka the ‘flesh’), and the Hebrew junta took to promoting the egoic side over the side of Light, possibly because that matched better with their new leader, Joshua, who, unlike the philosopher-visionary Moses, was a military guy; and he thought like a military guy.

Even the notion of not working on the Sabbath: Jesus would not keep up appearances when he saw someone in need of immediate assistance. Afterwards, he still had to account for what he did in violation of the Hebrew god’s will.

‘It’s okay to heal people Monday to Saturday, but not on Sundays,’ says Yahweh. ‘Why?’ the Hebrews ask. ‘Because that’s my day off!’ says Yahweh. (um, hello?)

Perhaps Jesus believed that folks might have been listening to the creator’s low-voice, rather than the high-voice. This is what he was challenging. He wanted people to know that we are separated from the light of the creator by selfishness, by reaction, by transaction – by ego, by the human-spirit’s low-voice.

Topping it all off: the ‘Promised Land’, you know, the one which flows with ‘milk and honey’ was not given, but rather taken by the Hebrews, at the behest of the Hebrew god, Yahweh. Everyone calling it home up until then was slaughtered, according to the Bible.

The Promised Land, now the ‘Holy Land’ has never seen a day without bloodshed. How ‘holy’ can a place like that really be? Three Faiths revere it. One god created it. They have never stopped fighting over it. They all kill in the name of God, for it. One god created it. Hello?

You want to make the ‘Holy Land’ holy? Stop the killing. Stop the illegal colonizing. Be good neighbours.

N.B. For me, the most telling is how the Hebrew god accepted the sacrifice of Abel’s, a poor little baby lamb (not at all a sacrifice by Abel, in my book; how much effort does it take to kill a poor  baby lamb?), whereas Cain’s sacrifice, the fruits of the field that he tended and harvested, were rejected.  The Hebrew god didn’t even come up with a good reason for the rejection? He just condemned Cain. That could not be the father of Jesus, the one Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane, could it be?

Perhaps, because he tested Jesus too. And Jesus ended up on the cross. He got a worse deal than Cain.

Conversely, Jesus forgave Peter three times, for not measuring up and standing beside Jesus in his darkest hour, and even conferred upon him the leadership of his movement.

I am siding with the Gnostics on this one. If they’re wrong, then the generation gap between Jesus and his dad is one for the ages.