my new year's resolution is to make the lifestyle change to the vegan-pure vegetarian diet: no animal derived foods.. it is a change i have considered before on different occasions.
i didn't stick with the diet in the past due to lack of information, or perhaps the abundance of misinformation available on the optimum diet.
i've never been grossly overweight, probably never over 170 lbs.
We are omnivores by nature, and a varied diet including reasonable amounts of meat and dairy is what we
are "optimized" to run on.
Can you point to a specific scientific study that proves that hypothesis? Or is this simply something that "everybody just knows to be true"?
Dave
i remember jws asserting that ge 1 was written from a human perspective.
therefore, "the two great luminaries" (ge 1:16), referring to the sun and the moon, are only "great" when seen from the earth, but in fact they are pretty small when compared to stars.
other passages within ge 1, otoh, are written from a divine perspective (no literal days for instance, ps.
Of course, it was written from a human perspective. The universe looked a lot different to story tellers three thousand years ago than it does to scientists today. The problem comes with reconciling that difference in the minds of believers today.
The cognitive dissonance produces some interesting notions of "what the writer really meant." The passage is quite easy to understand if one doesn't have to make it "truth." Once I realized that the writer actually meant what he wrote, that it didn't have to mean something else, I felt quite relieved.
No, it didn't answer the ultimate questions of life, the universe, and everything. However, I'm satisfied more with unanswered questions than questionable answers.
Dave
my new year's resolution is to make the lifestyle change to the vegan-pure vegetarian diet: no animal derived foods.. it is a change i have considered before on different occasions.
i didn't stick with the diet in the past due to lack of information, or perhaps the abundance of misinformation available on the optimum diet.
i've never been grossly overweight, probably never over 170 lbs.
My New Year's Resolution is to make the lifestyle change to the Vegan-Pure Vegetarian diet: no animal derived foods.
It is a change I have considered before on different occasions. I didn't stick with the diet in the past due to lack of information, or perhaps the abundance of misinformation available on the optimum diet. I've never been grossly overweight, probably never over 170 lbs. I'm not a big person, so my optimal weight might be closer to 150 lbs. Frankly, I don't care about weight. My main concern is my long term health and how I feel. I want to have more energy, better skin and eyesight, and improved digestion.
Three of my uncles have died. Two of them were my father's brothers, and the other was not genetically related. In all three cases the lifestyle choices they made killed them in their 60's, too early if you ask me. They were not sudden deaths. In each case they suffered chronic illness as a precursor to their demise. One in particular had a veritable smorgasboard of infirmities: diabetes, hypertension, and prior heart attacks and strokes. He was a man who loved his steak and beer. He had been an elder before his infirmities became too severe. It is interesting how obesity is considered normal in our culture to the extent that it is no longer considered to be a "sin" among the Witnesses.
When I look at the health of my parent's generation that have lived on the Standard American Diet, I don't like what I see. Even among people my own age it is alarming to see so many depending on pharmaceuticals to correct for lifestyle choices.
Dave
until yesterday i hadn't posted at jwd/n since august 08. now i'm back i'm wondering if i've made a mistake, it just feels like all my fight has gone, i just don't want to argue with anyone anymore.
fluff?!
that's like asking a curry addict to switch to pasta!.
WB, Nic!
Great post Vinny!
Dave
please accept my apologies for the belated greetings.. january 1st was the 'feast of the circumcision' of baby little j.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/feast_of_the_circumcision.
assuming baby j travelled out of the birth canal on 25th december then on the 1st january his little foreskin would have been removed.. what a feast!
let us party on down.. thomas covenant.
I am in "the club" so to speak. I would prefer that it had not been done, but no one asked me. "Restoration" techniques are time consuming and require a great deal of personal discipline. I have had limited results. I find it odd that some females worry about a foreskin being dirty when in fact it is much easier to keep clean than what they have. Are you saying that women are inherently more likely to keep themselves clean than men? If your partner is dirty, tell him or her to clean it up.
Circumcision prevents HIV transmission? Tell that to all the circumcised men who have contracted AIDS and passed it on to their partners in the United States. A circumcised male may be less likely to contract HIV, but it is still a game of Russian roulette. The only proven preventative is abstinence. The next best alternative is a trusting monogamous relationship. Sex with unknown and untested partners is just plain stupid, circumcised or intact.
Dave
a poster recently described himself that way and it got me thinking as to just how strange that position is.
for the theist it's a convenient win/win situation, hold onto your belief in god while attempting to cloak yourself in science's robes of rationality and reason.
i think believers who hold this precarious opinion need calling on it.. for now i'll just say that this mongrelization of views is, to me, deeeply unsatisfying.
Not lame. I think it is an acceptable position to take. Since when do non-theists need to show intolerance toward other beliefs?
Dave (tolerant non-theist primate)
please accept my apologies for the belated greetings.. january 1st was the 'feast of the circumcision' of baby little j.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/feast_of_the_circumcision.
assuming baby j travelled out of the birth canal on 25th december then on the 1st january his little foreskin would have been removed.. what a feast!
let us party on down.. thomas covenant.
Since you brought it up, I thought I might remind people that the form of circumcision practiced on infants in the United States today does not resemble that which was practiced at the time of Jesus' birth.
Dave
if witnesses highlighted love, wouldn't you think the organization would grow?.
or if they stressed bible doctrines more than rules, do you believe they might produce a larger, happier community?.
Most Witnesses are currently in it for one of two reasons:
1. Waiting for the Paradise Earth
2. Depending on support from family who are Witnesses
I don't know what "basics" can really change the motivation of the first group, though the second group would be more open to fundamental changes, imo.
Dave
i still get copies of all the kms and mags - just for a giggle really.
oh and to look out for noo light of course!.
i was browsing thru the march 15 2009 yesterday and came across something that was noo to me.
I recall reading a Golden Age from 1925 (PDF) that stated that the last days had begun in 1899. Did they revise that teaching later in 1925? The prediction for 1914 prior to that year was not the start of the "last days" but for the End.
Of course, they can be vigilant to 2100 and beyond claiming one "turning point" after another, but "God's Kingdom" won't come.
Dave
why is pharaoh's (or rather pharaohs', as there were more than one) not given in the book of genesis?.
did the writer (or compiler) of the book have something to gain by not being precise as to the idientity of pharaoh?.
.
Consider the original audience for the Biblical stories and you may get a better idea why they were written the way they were. We are not the intended audience. The Bible was not written as a history book. Few, if any, ancient documents were ever written to the level of discipline required by modern historians.
The first Pharaoh mentioned by name in the Bible was Shishaq (Sheshonk I), apparently a contemporary of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. Why else wouldn't the Biblical stories of the time of the alleged Exodus include the name of the then current Pharaoh except that a. it wasn't known, and b. the stories themselves were fabrications written, copied, and edited long after the alleged events took place?
Given the documentary evidence of heavy editing between multiple sources (J, E, P and R in Genesis and Exodus) often with contradictory results, it is possible to assume that the Bible no longer can be trusted as an objective historical document. Indeed, it was never intended to be one. Scholarly analysis has shown how different priestly families competed for dominance within the socio-political framework of the Kingdom's of Israel. Each group had stories favorable to their own tradition.
After the Babylonian exile these documents from competing sources were combined into their present form. Some of the editing displayed remarkable skill while other passages are barely comprehensible cut and paste jobs. I would place the Flood account in the former category, while the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram definitely goes in the latter.
There is no archeological evidence of a massive emigration of slaves from Egypt. The logistics of the Biblical account are purely fantastical with even the slightest application of logic.
Dave
