Enhancing health with time on your side

[Guest guest]

> Just so you don't feel unequally offended, I think Christ is crap

too.

>

> -

>

I'm surprised to see you compare astrology with Christ. You certainly

have a right to your opinion, but I must observe your assertion does

not reflect the spirit of your typically thoughtful and well-

researched posts. Perhaps, as I once did, you feel that one who is

critically-thinking and scientifically-minded cannot possibly

acknowledge Christ as anything but " crap. " Once I actually started to

earnestly research the subject, however, I found I could not have been

more wrong. If you are interested, I suggest CS , RC Sproul and

Lee Strobel as very good resources.

Sincerely,

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/7/2006 2:40:27 PM Central Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> " I think you will wish someday that you had not taken Christ so lightly.

>

> I agree with that you should read C.S. . What is mere

> mortal man to call Christ or Jesus " crap " . This deeply saddens me.

> Sincerely,

> Kayla "

>

> Perhaps you should find more important things to concern you.

>

Thank You, Kayla: No Person knows enough to be an Atheist..

[Guest guest]

> Just so you don't feel unequally offended, I think Christ is crap

too.

>

> -

>

" I'm surprised to see you compare astrology with Christ. You certainly

have a right to your opinion, but I must observe your assertion does

not reflect the spirit of your typically thoughtful and well- researched

posts. Perhaps, as I once did, you feel that one who is

critically-thinking and scientifically-minded cannot possibly

acknowledge Christ as anything but " crap. " Once I actually started to

earnestly research the subject, however, I found I could not have been

more wrong. If you are interested, I suggest CS , RC Sproul and

Lee Strobel as very good resources.

Sincerely,

"

I think that what you say is true - that there is a foundation of wisdom

in what Jesus said that is certainly not present in something like

Astrology. However, I somehow doubt that is really saying that what

Jesus said is crap. I think that his sentiments are somewhat similar to

mine, which is the way that 'CHRIST' is so openly promoted, is crap.

Personally, I get terribly annoyed when, for periods of time here, it

seems like EVERY message posted to this list has some cutesy little

message about Christ in it, either as a tag to the message itself, or as

the quoted part of the the reply. But that isn't contradictory at all

with the fact that I think that there is much wisdom in the various

world religions if one looks for it. Maybe it's analogous to the notion

that you won't find the real news by watching the network news

shows...Of course, will probably disabuse me of my attempts to over

analyze what he said.

[Guest guest]

Got lost in my double negatives, apparently. Sentence below should

read, " Because there is bad science certainly doesn't mean that, at its

foundation, what is good nutrition is magic. "

RE: Enhancing health with time on your side

" Quite frankly, I don't follow NT because of science. I used to eat

according to a variety of sciences, it didn't work. Finding the right

science by sifting through hundreds of thousands of papers on nutrition

would have taken me ages! Especially when you need solid background to

disprove some of the diet dictocrat's studies (like the saturated fat

study that actually included trans fats). Of course, that doesn't stop

me from looking at studies that specifically relate to NT concepts now

that I eat NT - but you have to realize NT concepts are a needle in the

haystack of crappy nutritional advice. "

There is science and there is bad science. Because there is bad science

certainly doesn't mean that, at its foundation, what is good nutrition

isn't magic. If you want to engage with astrology, that's fine. However

you could also you similar reasoning - because there is 'bad, silly'

astrology, then you shouldn't pay any attention to it at all. Most of

the sound reasoning that I see from the more sane members on this group

IS based on science and logic, and that is why I find the group to still

be a valuable source of information. ly, if the sentiment that

'science is bad' and we should pay attention to astrology, and do

whatever ancient people did because they found stuff by " trial and

error " had won over this group completely, I would have completely

written it off as ruled by a bunch of flakes by now. I certainly don't

want to assign my health over to theories that are derived using that

kind of thinking.

" I follow NT because I have found through trial and error that it makes

me healthy. I trust that the natives did the same thing. If I wern't

thinking, I would just follow NT because someone said to. Instead, I am

actively observing my body's reaction to the foods I put in it and

making conclusions based off of those reactions. That is not " not

thinking " - it is thinking differently. "

If that is all that you do - ignore studies and try stuff by trial and

error - I can't stop you. However, I have known people in my life who

ascribe to such approaches and they can convince themselves of all sorts

of things. And perhaps I have the peculiar 'advantage' of not feeling

particularly different if I eat NT or not....so my goals are mostly long

range, and I can rely on a more dispassionate approach.

" If you don't want to think differently, that's fine. Each to their

own. "

This whole 'open minded' aristocracy reminds of years ago when I was

approached by these chanting heathens in the Boston area. They were

pretty well known, but I forget the cute little name they gave to their

group. They argued that you could get wealthy and successful simply by

chanting their chant, and accused me of not being 'open minded' because

I didn't even consider trying it. I think that the reasoning that you

use - using a statement that everyone would agree with, i.e. 'people

should be open minded' to denigrate having some reasonible filters on

what one accepts/trys and what one doesn't is a pretty nasty and

intellectually dishonest technique. Reminds me a bit of the kind of

reasoning that our government uses repeatedly....'well, what's wrong

with trying to bring freedom to people around the world'....um,

well.....I could use this same argument on you if I wished and say that

you should be more open minded, referring to your attitude about

science, or anything else.

-Lana

> > > Don't be closed minded, it won't do good for you in the long

> run. > > I think that we also should think every once and awhile.

> Very > annoying to be told that you're 'close minded' when you

> attempt to do > so. I think it's better to apply a little analytical

> thinking than it > is to believe every bit of crap that comes along

> because you're afraid

>

> > of being 'close minded'.

>

> " Honestly, I don't think you really read the first part of my post,

> you just went off on how astrology is not credible for anything. You

> completely missed that I was only saying that yes, it could very well

> have something to do with diet due to its relation to seasons. You're

> still stuck on your original point - astrology is good for nothing. "

>

> I still don't understand how I missed anything.

>

>

> " But my point is, if it were so useless, why are calendars based off

> of it? "

>

> Just don't follow this. Really. That calendars may have had something

> originally to do with astrology (I just don't know), really says

> nothing about whether astrology has anything to say as theory about

> anything. All I've seen is crap.

>

> " And since when do seasons and other cyclical environmental

> conditions not relate to diet?

>

> You also completely missed my point that sometimes trial and error

> does succeed and to throw away all that knowledge would be akin to

> believing the diet dictocrats over native nutrition. "

>

> I haven't missed anything at all. However, you don't seem to

> understand anything that I " ve said at all.

>

> Trial and error succeeds sometimes. True. However, a false statement

> is still a false statement, and a vacuous one is still a vacuous one.

> All I saw in that astrology article was crap. That ancients sometimes

> succeeded by trial and error doesn't excuse you from exercising your

> brain a little. Every ancient practice and belief doesn't have value

> as THEORY, especially as practiced by us, and accusing someone of not

> being open minded because he doesn't accept crap, is absolutely

> ridiculous. If there was NO science that backed up what believed

> about nutrition this would simply be a list of crackpots. Sometimes

> it does sound that way.

[Guest guest]

> There is science and there is bad science. " Because there is bad science

certainly doesn't mean that, at its foundation, what is good nutrition is

magic. "

(I actually read it this way anyway. )

> ly, if the sentiment that

> 'science is bad' and we should pay attention to astrology, and do

> whatever ancient people did because they found stuff by " trial and

> error " had won over this group completely,

Of course it isn't magic. Its just you have to wade through so much

to get to the good science that the amount of time spent becomes

unrealistic when you are eager to get well. Thus I compensate by

taking past experience of myself and others and investigating that in

a scientific manner. Its more like a starting point. After all,

isn't that what the past is supposed to be for us?

> And perhaps I have the peculiar 'advantage' of not feeling

> particularly different if I eat NT or not....so my goals are mostly long

> range, and I can rely on a more dispassionate approach.

You're very lucky. When I found NT, I couldn't even stand much less

walk or work. Admittedly, my condition at the time did force me to

look more at experience than scientific fact, but I didn't abandon

science completely... I just used experience to refine my searches

through science. If I hadn't, I would probably still be that ill. I

still get ill on and off when I don't eat the right things - even if

they are all NT foods.

> This whole 'open minded' aristocracy reminds of years ago when I was

> approached by these chanting heathens in the Boston area. They were

> pretty well known, but I forget the cute little name they gave to their

> group. They argued that you could get wealthy and successful simply by

> chanting their chant, and accused me of not being 'open minded' because

> I didn't even consider trying it.

That's cute. I don't think I would have chanted either.

> I think that the reasoning that you

> use - using a statement that everyone would agree with, i.e. 'people

> should be open minded' to denigrate having some reasonible filters on

> what one accepts/trys and what one doesn't is a pretty nasty and

> intellectually dishonest technique.

The only point I tried to make is that you should be open minded

enough to see that astrological signs are an ancient calendar based on

stars/seasons. And as such they *might* actually have something to do

with diet due to the fact that *sometimes* trial and error does indeed

succeed. I never argued that astrology was a valid science to base

your entire life off of. I apologize if I haven't managed to word

that right. Sometimes paper really does lose some of the meaning.

> Reminds me a bit of the kind of

> reasoning that our government uses repeatedly....'well, what's wrong

> with trying to bring freedom to people around the world'....

Yeah, I'm not so big on that either. Actually when you consider what

the persuit of money has done to the American people in terms of heath

alone... I can kinda see why they hate America. That doesn't mean I'm

anti-American, I'm just anti corporations who exploit people to make

money. Too bad most Americans don't make that differentiation.

This has been an interesting debate.

Thank You.

Lana

[Guest guest]

I think you will wish someday that you had not taken Christ so lightly.

I agree with that you should read C.S. . What is mere

mortal man to call Christ or Jesus " crap " . This deeply saddens me.

Sincerely,

Kayla

kristinmoke wrote:

> > Just so you don't feel unequally offended, I think Christ is crap

> too.

> >

> > -

> >

>

> I'm surprised to see you compare astrology with Christ. You certainly

> have a right to your opinion, but I must observe your assertion does

> not reflect the spirit of your typically thoughtful and well-

> researched posts. Perhaps, as I once did, you feel that one who is

> critically-thinking and scientifically-minded cannot possibly

> acknowledge Christ as anything but " crap. " Once I actually started to

> earnestly research the subject, however, I found I could not have been

> more wrong. If you are interested, I suggest CS , RC Sproul and

> Lee Strobel as very good resources.

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What is mere

> mortal man to call Christ or Jesus " crap " .

Kayla,

It is yet unconfirmed that is mortal.

B.

/I keed, I keed

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Of course, will probably disabuse me of my attempts to over

>analyze what he said.

No, you pretty much nailed it.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I'm surprised to see you compare astrology with Christ.

I think you're reading a bit too much into a very small comment. I

said I think astrology and Christianity are both crap. That's

somewhat different.

> You certainly

>have a right to your opinion, but I must observe your assertion does

>not reflect the spirit of your typically thoughtful and well-

>researched posts. Perhaps, as I once did, you feel that one who is

>critically-thinking and scientifically-minded cannot possibly

>acknowledge Christ as anything but " crap. " Once I actually started to

>earnestly research the subject, however, I found I could not have been

>more wrong. If you are interested, I suggest CS , RC Sproul and

>Lee Strobel as very good resources.

I've read plenty of C. S. , unfortunately.

That's rather beside the point, though. If I were actually going to

compare astrology to Christianity, I'd note that both include

supernatural claptrap but (AFAIK) only Christianity offers moral

philosophy. I was referring to the supernatural claptrap with my

offhand " crap " remark. As to the moral philosophy, it's easy to find

both good and bad in those offered by all the world's religions, and

Christianity is no exception.

-

[Guest guest]

Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

" I think you will wish someday that you had not taken Christ so lightly.

I agree with that you should read C.S. . What is mere

mortal man to call Christ or Jesus " crap " . This deeply saddens me.

Sincerely,

Kayla "

Perhaps you should find more important things to concern you.

[Guest guest]

Lana-

>Quite frankly, I don't follow NT because of science. I used to eat

>according to a variety of sciences, it didn't work.

Science is a discipline, or roughly as Gene put it, there's good

science and there's bad science. To dismiss science itself, if

that's what you're doing, because of human error and corruption is

grievously mistaken.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>It is yet unconfirmed that is mortal.

Someone could always shoot me and find out...

-

[Guest guest]

I am not dismissing science. I just refuse to take a 100% scientific

perspective. I believe in studying the results of trial and error and

then researching what appear to be key components of the results.

My body punishes me when I eat even the slightest bit of bad food, or

if I don't eat the right foods. The funny thing is, I usually find

science backs up what I learn from my body. So, I guess I'm lucky in

a very unfortunate way. Perhaps that is why I appreciate trial and

error so much.

If it wern't for my fickle body, I would never have found NT. I guess

I should be grateful...

-Lana

On 1/7/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Lana-

>

> >Quite frankly, I don't follow NT because of science. I used to eat

> >according to a variety of sciences, it didn't work.

>

> Science is a discipline, or roughly as Gene put it, there's good

> science and there's bad science. To dismiss science itself, if

> that's what you're doing, because of human error and corruption is

> grievously mistaken.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Lana-

>My body punishes me when I eat even the slightest bit of bad food, or

>if I don't eat the right foods. The funny thing is, I usually find

>science backs up what I learn from my body. So, I guess I'm lucky in

>a very unfortunate way. Perhaps that is why I appreciate trial and

>error so much.

>

>If it wern't for my fickle body, I would never have found NT. I guess

>I should be grateful...

I have a similar, if perhaps less severe (or not?) problem, and when

I find myself getting resentful over the state of my health, I try to

tell myself that it's a blessing in disguise -- this way I won't go

peacefully into the long dark night of " age-related " decline. But

that's arguably BS.

-

[Guest guest]

I think that quite obviously, NO ONE, to the slightest degree, is

advising you not to experiment to see what works best for you. And NO

ONE, the the slightest degree, is advising you to take a " 100%

scientific perspective " , whatever that may mean.

However, dismissing mumbo jumbo wacko perspectives as legitimate theory

is something else entirely.

Hail Satan,

Gene

Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

I am not dismissing science. I just refuse to take a 100% scientific

perspective. I believe in studying the results of trial and error and

then researching what appear to be key components of the results.

My body punishes me when I eat even the slightest bit of bad food, or if

I don't eat the right foods. The funny thing is, I usually find science

backs up what I learn from my body. So, I guess I'm lucky in a very

unfortunate way. Perhaps that is why I appreciate trial and error so

much.

If it wern't for my fickle body, I would never have found NT. I guess I

should be grateful...

-Lana

On 1/7/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Lana-

>

> >Quite frankly, I don't follow NT because of science. I used to eat

> >according to a variety of sciences, it didn't work.

>

> Science is a discipline, or roughly as Gene put it, there's good

> science and there's bad science. To dismiss science itself, if

> that's what you're doing, because of human error and corruption is

> grievously mistaken.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

In a message dated 1/7/2006 2:40:27 PM Central Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> " I think you will wish someday that you had not taken Christ so

> lightly.

>

> I agree with that you should read C.S. . What is mere

> mortal man to call Christ or Jesus " crap " . This deeply saddens me.

> Sincerely,

> Kayla "

>

> Perhaps you should find more important things to concern you.

>

" Thank You, Kayla: No Person knows enough to be an Atheist.. "

Please quote where I have stated that I am an atheist. You can't, can

you? The statement that 'Jesus was a mortal' does not prove that one is

an atheist, does it? If so, how exactly does that work? Does being a

believer mean that you have to use faith in EVERY discussion? If logic

never works for you, how do you converse at all?

[Guest guest]

LOL !

My biggest problem is the more of these bad foods I remove from my

diet, the less of a tolerance I have for them later. I feel like a

chronic allergy patient. The more progress I make, the more foods I

have trouble with.

I keep reminding myself its a blessing in disguise.

-Lana

On 1/7/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Lana-

>

> >My body punishes me when I eat even the slightest bit of bad food, or

> >if I don't eat the right foods. The funny thing is, I usually find

> >science backs up what I learn from my body. So, I guess I'm lucky in

> >a very unfortunate way. Perhaps that is why I appreciate trial and

> >error so much.

> >

> >If it wern't for my fickle body, I would never have found NT. I guess

> >I should be grateful...

>

> I have a similar, if perhaps less severe (or not?) problem, and when

> I find myself getting resentful over the state of my health, I try to

> tell myself that it's a blessing in disguise -- this way I won't go

> peacefully into the long dark night of " age-related " decline. But

> that's arguably BS.

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

CRaicker-

>Thank You, Kayla: No Person knows enough to be an Atheist..

I suppose that depends on your definition of " atheist " . feels

that I'm an agnostic because I don't rule out the possibility that

some kind of agency created the universe we're living in. I say I'm

an atheist because I don't believe in any of the human god

stories. And it seems to me that no person knows enough to be a _theist_.

-

[Guest guest]

Lana-

>My biggest problem is the more of these bad foods I remove from my

>diet, the less of a tolerance I have for them later. I feel like a

>chronic allergy patient. The more progress I make, the more foods I

>have trouble with.

What kind of problem foods give you more trouble after you remove them?

-