A Letter to the Jehovah's Witnesses

Dear Jehovah’s Witness:

Thank you for your dedication and commitment to your faith and willingness to share it.  Like Paul said to the Athenians in Acts 17, “I can see that you are a very religious people.”  All of man’s attempts to get to God through religion, however, are futile; only God’s revelation of Himself is true and reliable.  We must therefore look to the Scriptures, the inspired and inerrant Word of God to determine the most fundamental issue of what true faith entails:  What does God say in the Bible about Himself and His nature?  Remember in Matthew 16:15, Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” 

Like points on a compass, one degree off will make a HUGE difference when followed to its conclusion.  Who Jesus is, is the most essential question anyone will ever ask and answer.  To get that wrong, following that point to its conclusions, can bring a person to the wrong faith and ultimately can condemn him.  As a friendly neighbor, I’d like to spend some time showing you the truth from Scripture.  You have visited my house to share some reading material, and I will read it.  My only request is that you return the courtesy by reading my letter to you.  So let’s begin at the beginning.

What does the Old Testament say about who Jesus is?

Genesis 1:1 makes reference to the Triune God when using the “generic” word for God, Elohim.  This is a plural Hebrew noun.  Furthermore, in verse 26, Jehovah the Father speaks in the plural, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.”  The point I make here is only that God in three persons is a reality alluded to from the beginning.  Let me be clear though, Trinitarian Christians worship ONE God who exists in three persons, not polytheistic gods.  The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.  The Father is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father.  The Son and the Spirit are also distinct, but all three Persons are God, Jehovah.  (Jehovah’s Witnesses use the term Jehovah in the same way that Trinitarian Christians use the term Father.)  The deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit becomes more sure as one looks at the whole of Scripture. 

Also in Genesis, verse 22:8, Moses records Abraham explaining to his son about the sacrifice, “God will provide Himself a lamb for the burnt offering.”  Emphasis on this word causes the pronoun, Himself, to be read as the direct object.  In other words, God will provide Himself as the burnt offering, referring to the fact that Jesus Christ would die on that same hill 2,000 years later as the once and final sacrifice for sin.  Abraham and Moses, therefore, affirm that Jesus, the Coming Messiah, is God and can, therefore, be the propitiation for sin.

David, arguably the most significant Old Testament character after Moses, says in Psalm 110:4, about Abraham’s dealings with the priest of Salem but speaking of the Christ, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”  David affirms that only the eternal God can be “a priest forever”; which is not and can not be true of a created being.

Jesus’ eternal nature is affirmed again in Psalm 110:1, when David writes,” The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’”  Who is David calling Lord?  And who then is “my Lord”?  These two persons are not the same because one is speaking to the other.  This strongly supports the idea that Jehovah, the Father, is speaking to Adonai, the Son, who does in fact sit at the right hand of the Father.  David worships and honors both Persons by calling both names for God.

Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies in a familiar passage, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”  (Emphasis mine)  Isaiah’s prophecy is clear: Jesus is mighty and everlasting.  He is God.  Moses, the Giver of the Law, David, the King on whose throne Jesus sits, and all the prophets, including Isaiah, indicate that the Messiah, Jesus, is God.  This is understood throughout the Major and Minor Prophets.

Moving to the New Testament, what do the Apostles say about who Jesus is?

John summarizes it best saying in his prologue to his Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”  The original Greek says, “Kai theos ev o logos.” Transliterated, this states, “And God was the Word.”  In other words, “What God was, the Word was.”  The order is NOT, “Kai o logos ev theos.”  Jesus is not a god, nor is He the same person as the Father. The word order tells us that Jesus has all the divine attributes that God the Father has. 

When asked by Jesus for His identity, Peter confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  Jesus tells Peter that the Father has supernaturally revealed this truth.  The Son and the Father are not the same Person, as clearly shown here, but Jesus’ deity is affirmed in other passages.

Thomas affirms Jesus’ deity in John 20:27-29 , “My Lord and my God!” upon seeing the resurrected Jesus.  Clearly Thomas calls Jesus Lord and God when he falls down in worship at Jesus’ feet..  Jesus does not “correct” Thomas for error because Thomas confesses the truth just as Peter did.

In Colossians 1:15-16 Paul explains Jesus’ position as the resurrected Lord “He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn over all creation.”  Image does not imply lesser, only that Jesus as God has the same attributes as Father God, that of being eternal: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.  And Firstborn does not mean born, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim! It is a title meaning heir.  This term was used at a time when “primogeniture” was practiced.  The firstborn son of a family was the heir of the family when the father died.  Paul uses this term to explain that Jesus is Heir of creation because of what He accomplished on the cross.  If there is any doubt that Paul espouses the deity of Christ, read on in Colossians 2:9, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”  Paul and all the Apostles affirm the deity of Jesus.

What did Jesus say about Himself?

Jesus says in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.”  The “I am” statement is clearly a reference to the Old Testament name for God the Father, what Jehovah’s Witnesses use from the Church Father Jerome’s Latin translation of the Hebrew YHWH in Exodus.  Jesus is claiming deity, equality with the Father. 

And at another point Jesus says, as recorded in John 10:29-31, “’My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.’ The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.” (Emphasis mine)  The Father and the Son are ONE God, though distinct Persons, as Jesus Himself reveals in these two passages.

What did Jesus’ enemies say?

Why do I ask this question?  Who cares, right?  Even Jesus’ enemies knew who Jesus was or at least who He was claiming to be.  The reference above, John 10:31, shows that Jesus’ enemies wanted to kill Him because they understood His claim to be God!  This is demonstrated in verse 33 when the Pharisees say, “‘We are not stoning you for any good work,’ they replied, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’”  They knew exactly, just as we should, what Jesus’ claim is!

Jesus claims to be God, but what does Jehovah, the Father, say about Him?

Jesus’ baptism is the best place to see all three Persons of the Trinity.  Matthew 3:13-17 tells the story and records the Father saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”  And the Spirit descends like a dove.  If Jesus claims to be God, and He is not, why would the Father say that He is well pleased with His Son?  Why would His Spirit descend upon Him?  To say anything else but that Jesus is God with the Father and the Spirit is to make Jesus and the Father out to be liars!

All of the Scriptures point to the fact that Jesus is God, and this Scriptural truth  is understood and supported by the early Church Fathers.  The Council of Nicea was called in 325 A.D. to address the Arian Heresy, the same heresy that Jehovah’s Witnesses are following today, which states that Jesus was not God but a created being.  Out of that Council came the creed which affirms the Trinity: 

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen. (emphasis mine)

Not only do the Scriptures attest to the deity of Christ, but so does Church history.  Jehovah exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  This is a great mystery, but any other teaching is unorthodox and “another Gospel”, as Paul called it.

Thank you for taking time to read this; I pray that it is helpful to you in finding the true Jesus, the Son of God who by grace can completely save you and free you from sin, death, and the Law.  Because Jesus is God, His sacrifice is efficacious; a man could not save us, an angel could not save us, “a god” could not save us. Because Jesus is Jehovah, equal to the Father, His sacrifice completely covers the infinitely offensive sin of His people.  He calls, and His sheep know his voice.  I pray that you hear the voice of Jehovah Jesus.  If after reading this, you’d like to talk further, please feel free to make an appointment.

Sincerely a follower of Jehovah the Son,

Rich Cali

Why "Mary Poppins" Is a Great Movie

Why “Mary Poppins” Is a Great Movie

A few months ago, I sent out a Facebook request to friends to help me provide some good DVD’s for my youngest, a two-year-old named Bella.  She had been watching the same movie over and over again, so I wanted to introduce her to some other good movies.  Today, as she watched “Mary Poppins” for the 456^th time, I found myself watching it for the 1,001^st.  One of my other children asked me, “Don’t you get tired of this?”  I could honestly answer no.  Mary Poppins is a wonderful musical movie.  As I started to explain this to my kids, I realized that I should write a review for this blog.  My older daughter, Christiana, then informed me that there is a “making of Mary Poppins” movie coming out, and I figured that I better do this before the movie is released, lest anyone think that I stole my ideas from someone else.  So here it is. 

 “Mary Poppins”?  Why not give my kids a science documentary or a “Christian” movie that teaches some kind of moral?  “Mary Poppins” is a classic movie that has and will stand the test of time, and I believe there are many reasons for this.  First, Julie Andrews is a natural beauty that fits the persona of an English nanny at the turn of the Twentieth Century, may I even say “an English rose”?  Her hair style, clothes, and manners are spot on, not to mention her very delightful voice.  To add to the charm, Dick Van Dyke’s slapstick humor gives just the right amount of comic relief.  The musical score is exceptional (I remember singing, or at least humming, “Just a spoonful of sugar…” and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” when I was a school boy myself.)  The movie is even complete with a parts played by Ed Wynn, a most memorable “I love to laugh”, and Arthur Treature, who once had a fish and chip chain right here in America!    This movie stood out as one of the first to include animation along with live action.  These features add to the movie, but none could carry it.  It’s the universal story that makes this film great.

To summarize the story, some misbehaving English children are running off nannies.  One gets the sense right away that they are not that bad.  The current nanny quits because the children have run off again to find a lost kite.  (Really?  Can she in good conscience quit while the children are still missing?)  In any case, they need a new nanny because the father is a dutiful banker and the mother is a political activist, working for women’s suffrage around 1910.  Mary Poppins appears on the scene in an extraordinary way to fill the position and begins showing the children unusual adventures.  Mr. Banks, the father, objects to all this worthless frivolity, wanting the children to approach life with their heads out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.  After the children cause a run on the bank resulting in Mr. Banks getting sacked from his job, the story climaxes when Burt the local jack-of-all-trades helps Mr. Banks to realize that his children will grow up too quickly, and he will have missed it while pursing self achievement.  The movie ends when the father accepts his firing, and the family skips down the street to fly a kite.

The important thing to note about the plot is that the main character is NOT Mary Poppins; nor are the children the focus.  The main character, the one who has a change of heart in a classic “man against himself” plotline, is George Banks.  He must overcome his own obstacles, not Mary. 

Mary Poppins, the audience is told right from the beginning, is “practically perfect in every way”; she does not have any improvement to make.  She is beautiful, sings like a bird, has excellent manners, and handles herself with the greatest poise.  “It’s a jolly holiday with Mary.”  As if this was not enough, she has magical abilities.  She can fly with her umbrella, pop in and out of chalk drawings, pull anything out of her carpet bag, and even understand dog-speak.  Her perfection is more than just being a good witch, though.  She plays the part of an angel.  At the very opening scene before the opening credits start, she is sitting on a cloud, looking down, omnisciently watching what this family needs.  She comes to set things right, saying she will stay “until the wind changes.”  She wisely queues in the children that their father “can’t see past the end of his nose,” prompting the children to “help” their father see things right.   Mary does not need any kind of transformation at all. 

No, the one who needs to change is Mr. Banks.  At the beginning, he sees the job of the one to mold and shape his children as the job of a hireling.  While he rightly understands the raising of children as one in which influences an entire society and civilization, he sees no responsibility for himself as father.  He gets angry at the children when they begin enjoying the escapades provided by their nanny.  He tells the children to “be quiet” and “go away” and that they’re giving him a headache.  He is far removed from his children, as when Michael says, “Father has never taken us anywhere.”  His alienation from his children is clearly the conflict that drives the plot. 

As a result of Mr. Banks’ lack of leadership, Mrs. Banks has no connection to the home either.  They have someone to cook their meals, a house keeper to clean their home, and likewise a nanny to raise their children.  When the children offer their qualifications for a new nanny, one can’t help but see that they are describing what they want in a mother.  As she listens to the list, her facial expression seems to suggest internal turmoil.  Like Mr. Banks, Winifred has no connection to her children either, and consequently leaves them in the hands of a stranger (Burt is not known to her.) in order to run off to a political rally.  Neither parent is actually parenting. 

Even though Winifred and George Banks undergo the change through the story, perhaps the character Mary Poppins gets to occupy the position in the title of the movie because she is the saintly agent who brings about the change in the family.  She facilitates a change in the parents, who have not properly cherished their children, by “putting ideas into their heads.”  The climax of the story is when Burt affects Mr. Banks while talking to him at the family’s chimney.  Burt is the foil of Mr. Banks.  Burt says at the beginning, “I does what I likes, and I likes what I does.”  He is not in a “cage” like Mr. Banks.  As Burt tells the children, “Cages comes in all shapes and sizes.”  Burt is not beholding to anyone and has time to enjoy the park with Mary, console a friend when he is sad, and dance with the children on the rooftops.  He seems to be the human agent working along-side the angelic one.  From a Christian point of view, I interpret Mary Poppins as the “Christ figure”, the deity who suffers for the people (Remember how hurt she was when she had to leave the children?), and Burt is the Christian who loves and admires the deity and physically serves on (her) behalf; the focus then being the “divine being”, Mary Poppins.

            “Mary Poppins” contains a very “pro-family” message, pretty significant for when this movie came out.  R.L. Dabney, the American Presbyterian theologian predicted the disintegration of the family in 1875.  “When the family shall no longer have a head, and the great foundation for the subordination of children –the mother’s example—is gone; when the mother shall have found another sphere than her home for her energies; when she shall have exchanged the sweet charities of domestic love and sympathy for the fierce passions of the hustings [i.e, the political arena]; when families shall be disrupted at the caprice of either party, and the children scattered as foundlings from their hearthstone,--it requires no wisdom to see that a race of sons will be reared nearer akin to devils than to men.”  His warning was true for 1910, the time of the setting for the movie; it was true in 1965 when the movie was released, and it is a message needed as much today.  “Husbands love your wives” and “raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” echoes in “Mary Poppins”, and is message that will endure for all time.  And I will continue to watch this film again and again.

What I Want to Watch with My Kids and When (Or Rich Cali’s Recommended Movies)

What I Want to Watch with My Kids and When
(Or Rich Cali's Recommended Movies)

Stories are the heart of a culture.  Stories both reflect and shape civilization by teaching, intentionally or unintentionally, what the people believe and value.  Stories have taken different forms through the ages: stories told in the dark around a campfire, traveling minstrels singing long epic poems, and literature consumed through printed books, including poetry and prose.  Today, modern values are formed and mirrored through the stories told in film.  According to Thomas Kuhn, a culture’s shift in ideas is first indicated through the media.  In order to understand our paradigm we can begin to understand contemporary society by studying our art forms, namely film.   

    Having my children culturally literate is an essential part of their education.  Just as Paul used the cultural references of Greece to connect with the Greeks, as found in Acts 17, I want my well prepared adult children to be ambassador’s to Western Civilization for the sake of the Gospel.  Not that they won’t be called to be missionaries in a foreign field, but I know at least they will need to be Christian apologists, evangelists, and witnesses right here where we were born.  

    I’ve chosen the following list of films for their cultural significance, world view lessons, and Biblical implications.  

Children (10 and under)

The Wizard of Oz

Mary Poppins

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

The Sound of Music

Babe

Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad World (My favorite movie as a kid)

The Princess Bride

Finding Nemo (Disney’s best animated movie ever, in my humble opinion.  It is a great depiction of the Gospel.)

The Lion King (good metaphor for man’s fall)

Beauty and the Beast (Disney’s next best for depicting self-sacrifice)

Toy Story; Toy Story 3 (Toy Story 3 is outstanding, but one must see the first one ahead.)

Adolescent (11-12)

Fiddler on the Roof

Chariots of Fire

The Right Stuff

Rocky (All 6 in order.  I will write a blog about how great this is later.)

Superman: The Movie

Iron Will

The Air Up There

Here Comes the Boom

Shackelton

The Untouchables

Gettysburg

Secondhand Lions

Star Wars (episodes IV, V, VI; pretend the others do not exist)

Raiders of the Lost Ark; The Last Crusade (edited)

Batman (Keaton and Nicholeson; edited); Batman Forever (edited)

The Sandlot

The Gods Must Be Crazy

Back to the Future

Middle school (12-15)

The Count of Monte Cristo

The Mission

Cleopatra (edited)

Atilla (edited)

The Matrix

Jesus of Nazareth

Gladiator

Braveheart (edited)

Becket

Henry V

Joan of Arc

A Man for All Seasons

Luther

Les Miserables (Nieson version.  Great story of redemption.)

The Last of the Mohicans

All Quiet on the Western Front

The Outlaw Jose Whales (edited)

Cinderella Man

Executive Decision

Die Hard

Napoleon Dynamite

Lord of the Rings trilogy

The Fugitive
My Big Fat Greek Wedding

High school (16-18)

A Few Good Men

Les Miserables (Musical version; rare case in which the book is good, the movie better, and the musical best.)

Castaway

Jaws

To Kill a Mockingbird

Moonstruck (This may not be universal; it may be just to understand the Cali clan.)
Pieces of April (edited)

Juno

Hamlet

Citizen Kane

Dances with Wolves

Casablanca

Schinlder’s List (edited)

Patton

Saving Private Ryan

Dead Poets Society

Apocalypse Now (edited)

Woodstock (edited)

Forest Gump

Mosquito Coast

Equilibrium

Ghandi

The Last Samari

Pride and Prejudice

Addiction (very mature but worth it!)

It’s a Wonderful Life

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises

The Sixth Sense, Signs, Unbreakable, The Village

Rear Window, North by Northwest, Vertigo

Superman Returns

Jerry McGuire (edited)

My nine children are a lot of kids for me to watch these with, so they are obviously good enough movies that I am willing to watch them again and again.  This list is arranged by what I believe is age appropriate; it assumes that I've had "THE TALK" with my child that I'm allowing to watch by the age of 12.  As a parent evaluates the suitability of a movie for his children, pluggedin.com is a great website for finding reviews that identify scenes that need discernment for age appropriateness and sin. I find it exceptionally helpful because it does not make the judgment call for the parent but rather provides enough information for the parent to make his own decision.  I've chosen these to what kind of sin, violence, or action that I believe they can handle; however, I still edit out sexual content and nudity to protect their eyes and hearts.  I don’t do it perfectly every time, but the following are the types of questions that I discuss with my kids when we finish watching them together.

What do you believe is the overall message of the story?

How does the movie define virtue?

What do you think the worldview of the storyteller is?  What does it say about good and evil?

Who were the good examples in the story that should be emulated?  Why?  

Was the antagonist portrayed realistically?  How?

What are the important themes in the story? Is there literary aspects of the story, like foreshadowing, symbolism, metaphor, etc.?

What was your favorite scene in the movie?  Why?

Do you think the dialogue and the cinematography are well done aesthetically?

    Francis Shaeffer says in Escape from Reason, “If a man goes overseas for any length of time we would expect him to learn the language of the country to which he was going.  More than this is needed, however, if he is really to communicate with the people among whom he speaks.  Only so will he have real communication with them and to them.  So it is with the Christian church.  Its responsibility is not only to hold to the basic, scriptural principles of the Christian faith, but to communicate these unchanging truths ‘into’ the generation in which it is living.”  To be effective in relating to our current culture, knowing film is a necessary tool.  

Mixed Up

Mixed Up

I’ve been slowly working on my second blog post, a movie review of Les Miserables, but Thursday’s news rattled my cage.  During a visit with my mother, her TV showed Leon Panetta, US Defense Secretary, signing a document lifting the ban on women in combat roles in the military.  This is a ban that has officially been in place since 1994, when President Bill Clinton allowed for women to serve in the military in non-ground combat roles.  As if that was not bad enough, our women will now be sent to the front lines.

The Bible teaches that this is a shameful thing.  Peter teaches us that husbands should treat their wives “as the weaker vessel”.  The lesson is that a woman is like a Ming vase, unique and priceless, worthy of being cherished and protected.  This is not saying that women aren’t strong, nor is it saying that their worth is less than that of men.  Quite the contrary.  This teaching addresses our attitude toward them such that we should esteem them.  Aren’t women and children what men fight for?  Does this mean that the government is now going to want to draft my daughters?  My future granddaughters?  I’d rather protect the women in my life than have them fight for me, just as God as Father protects us.

No matter how one feels about women in combat, though, the US still has its priorities screwed up.  We richly reward men who have been grown and cultivated to be giants, on average over 6 and a half feet tall and 250-300 pounds of muscle, to play games.  We pay them millions to chase and throw a ball, while at the same time, today’s official policy is to send young women into combat.  Our genetically bred warriors fool around, and we send little girls off to fight!  What is wrong with this country?

Butter is Christan

Butter is Christian.

At the breakfast table this morning, one of my kids commented while putting real butter on her fresh, homemade waffles, “I’m so glad that we believe in butter!”  It was interesting that she said "believe in" and not "use".  This led to an excited conversation about butter vs. margarine.  I understand that there are at least two opposing camps on the use of butter in one’s diet.  One camp believes, stated simply, that butter is full of fat which clogs the arteries and leads to heart failure.  Butter is therefore bad.  These folks often choose to eat butter substitutes, like margarine.  The other camp believes that butter comes from the cream of cow's milk and is therefore more natural than margarine.  This camp embraces the idea that natural fats are good for the body, make arteries supple, and are part of a healthy diet.  Butter is good and a far superior choice to any brand of chemically-altered vegetable fat colored with petroleum-based dye.  As I said something to this effect to my family, it dawned on me that not only does our family prefer foods that are closer to the way that God made them because they are healthier, but also our presuppositions come into play in our view of food, processing, the role of science, and man's role in the universe. 

I passionately articulated something to the effect that "one's assumptions about butter reflect one's presuppositions and ultimately one's view of man's abilities and responsibilities.  If you believe that we can produce better food in a laboratory and that modern science has all the answers, you're probably a humanist or at least have modernist tendencies in your worldview.  Therefore, you may believe that margarine is good and healthier than butter.  Or if you believe that milk comes from cows, is a natural substance intended to be consumed, and that when we make butter we are simply "taking dominion", not reinventing food, then one would hold to a worldview closer to Christianity."  For emphasis, I exclaimed, "Butter is Christian!"   My family stared at me in surprise and perhaps disbelief.  "Well, at least butter is evidence of common grace."

"I need a blog," I determined.  So here we are. 

While I do believe the title of this article is a true statement, this article, and more importantly this blog, is not so much about butter or food as it is about worldviews, the Christian worldview in particular.  Worldview is the set of presuppositions through which a person interprets reality and thereby affects his choices and actions.  What one believes about the world and reality must affect what one believes about everything, including butter.  

I hope that this first blog post will get your attention and will entice you to join in conversation.  I have told my wife repeatedly that on my tombstone I want the words: "His life was all about the conversation."  This is true in my home, in my work, in my ministry.  I hope that this will be true of this opportunity to talk with others online.  Let's hope that this will be true and my tombstone won't read: "He died of clogged arteries."