RELIGION Re: Enhancing health with time on your side

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

January 7, 2006

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>But what I find amusing is that two non-Christians and essentially

>atheists (if I understand Taoism correctly, it is atheistic, or at

>least non-theistic?) are arguing about what Christ was, as if there

>were historical evidence or evidence of any kind on which to base the

>arguments.

" That ties in to a point I would like to add here. For atheism to be

based in reason, it would logically be arrived at ONLY after one has

examined the historical evidence that suggests the existance of a god. "

There is such evidence? Surely if there were such evidence, there

wouldn't be such need for faith.

" If the evidence is carefully analyzed and found to be unconvincing,

then I think atheism is a reasonable, logical choice. But if atheism is

based on presuppositions without having even examined the historical

evidence suggesting the existence of god, that would be illogical. "

Well, given that there is no evidence in everyday life (as far as I can

tell) that there is a personal god, I would imagine that the burden of

'proof' is on the believer. Where is the evidence? I think that most

atheists would LOVE to be convinced that there is indeed a god. But,

similarly for most irrational notions, I think that there is no

overwhelming obligation to sift through all of recorded history to rule

out that there might be some evidence. After all, it always might be in

that next source...I think that it is rational to believe that if there

indeed were EVIDENCE that there were a personal god, then this evidence

would be pretty well known by now.

As far as evidence of a non-personal god, what exactly would constitute

evidence? I have no idea, personally. Do you?

" I tend to lean toward empirical proof before I believe something,

rather than faith. For that reason I bought the book " The New Evidence

that Demands a Verdict " by Josh McDowell. It's about 760 pages of

historical evidence in support of Christianity. I've only read a small

portion of it so far, but it does offer some compelling evidence,

although of course, it doesn't *prove* anything. But it is interesting

that this book was written by someone who set out to DISprove

Christianty but upon serious investigation in his rush to disprove it,

he became convinced that the historical evidence was contrary to his

hypothesis. "

Ok, I'm convinced. Give us something compelling please.

" Perhaps there is historical evidence for other gods, I don't know as I

haven't investigated them. But the same principle would hold true -

unless we do due diligence in investigating the historical evidence,

then it would be unreasonable to conclude there isn't a god. And frankly

I think the converse is jus as true - that belief in a god is not

reasonable without at least some due diligence in examining the evidence

for his/her existence. "

Belief in god is not based on evidence.

You have very offered the claim that there is evidence that Jesus is god

(I'm at a loss as to what else you could mean). That is a rather bizarre

thing to say without actually offering some of this. Please - I'd love

to be convinced of 'the STORY'. It really makes life so much easier.

Please - offer us some " compelling " evidence.

January 7, 2006

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Suze Fisher

Oh, here's an interesting tidbit that might add further proof that this

discussion is pretty fruitless. I watched one of those hour long " news "

shows recently - maybe 48 hours, I don't recall now. In any case, it was

right before Christmas and it was about faith. Oh yeh, I just remembered -

it was a Barbara Walters special. In any event, she interviewed a geneticist

who had done a study on people who have faith in a god, or were in some

respect believers in the spiritual realm and those who weren't. He found

that the believers have a genetic mutation that the nonbelievers don't have.

Has anyone read anything about the possibility that genetics may predispose

us to being believers or non-believers?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

January 7, 2006

" Oh, here's an interesting tidbit that might add further proof that this

discussion is pretty fruitless. I watched one of those hour long " news "

shows recently - maybe 48 hours, I don't recall now. In any case, it was

right before Christmas and it was about faith. Oh yeh, I just remembered

- it was a Barbara Walters special. In any event, she interviewed a

geneticist who had done a study on people who have faith in a god, or

were in some respect believers in the spiritual realm and those who

weren't. He found that the believers have a genetic mutation that the

nonbelievers don't have.

Has anyone read anything about the possibility that genetics may

predispose us to being believers or non-believers? "

And what exactly constitutes the test for a believer? Simply answering

'yes' to the question of whether they believe in God? How else could you

test for anything else? But then, there must be people who would say

'yes' even though they don't actually believe...i.e. act in accordance

with their 'beliefs'. So there is a genetic mutation which correlates to

answering 'yes' when asked this specific question?

Sounds like utter bull to me.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. "

-- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at

Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

----------------------------

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > IMPORTANT ADDRESSES <UL>

<LI><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

<LI><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI> </UL> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace "

SIZE= " 3 " ><A HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST

OWNER:</A> Idol MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

January 8, 2006

>I understand, likewise, that this is absurd to someone who is not a

>Christian because she or he sees no reason to make such an exception. "

>

>Wouldn't everything you say here apply to all irrational beliefs? What

>makes this different exactly. Obviously, if I believe that I am from

>Venus, and have come about that belief, say, through a dream in which my

>mother was whisked away to Venus and copulated with the high Venusian

>priest, nothing that you say can count as a refutation to ME. So what?

>

Yes, I agree Gene. If it is an absurd idea, then it is so. Why make an

exception to rational thinking? If you make one exception, then why not

another? It all leads to irrational thinking one way or another and

changes the otherwise normal functioning of the brain. and I

debated the logic of the Trinity and it could not be shown (and he did

say something to the effect that even though it couldn't be shown

logically that it did not mean it was illogical, cmiiw Chris).

Helga linked to this Church of Reality recently, and I like the site

myself. Here's some stuff on faith:

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/the_faith_paradox/

-------------------

Faith means to believe in something without evidence or proof. Using the

term in the Christian sense, faith is required. You have to make a

commitment to accept statements as true without evidence or proof. In

fact that is God's test to see if you can believe in him without any

reason other than trust in the authority of the church and it's holy

books. And you are prohibited from doubting, questioning, scrutinizing,

or putting the object of faith to the test. Once something that relies

on faith is proven, then it becomes science. If everything were proven

then there would be nothing left that is real to have faith in.

The requirement of faith puts an interesting twist in the rules. If

faith were optional then it wouldn't matter how you believed in

something. But when the test of salvation is based not on what you

believe in, but how you believe in it, i.e. faith, then if you don't

believe in it by that method, you burn in Hell forever. Based on this,

science can not lead you to God because if you get to God through

science then you don't have faith and you got there the wrong way. There

isn't anything in the Bible that indicates that you are saved through

scientific discovery. It's about faith, and only faith.

But Faith in What?

The test of salvation is faith. You are required to believe through

faith and not through science. But what are you required to have faith

in? There are tens of thousands of choices out there to put your faith

in, but what if you pick the wrong one? Will you go to Hell if you pick

the wrong one? Most definitely you will.

One Sunday afternoon as you are sitting on your porch, a Jehovah's

Witness and a member of the Assembly of God walk up to you at the same

time to convert you to their religion. Both of them claim to be Bible

believing Christians who are out to save your soul so that you might

enter the Kingdom of Heaven to live forever in eternal paradise. However

it is soon apparent that these religions are mutually exclusive, each

claiming the other is the road to hell. Perhaps there are 10 different

religions represented as other Christians start gathering. Seventh Day

Adventists, Mormons, Messianic Jews, Baptists, Moonies, and throw in a

Muslim, all of them claiming that all the others are false beliefs and

that unless you make the correct choice, your soul is forever lost. But

the one thing they have in common is that you must believe through faith.

So - how do you choose? How do you decide which one is right?

Obviously you can't start out by using reason because if you use science

and logic then you will surely pick the wrong one. If the belief is

scientifically provable then you won't be able to believe in it through

faith. Since faith is required then scientific proof would be

prohibited. Suppose there were one true religion, the religion who got

it all right (or at least really close). And suppose that it had the

salvation by faith clause. Then suppose that science proved that this

religion were real. What would that mean?

---------------------

Deanna

January 8, 2006

Suze,

>Oh, here's an interesting tidbit that might add further proof that this

>discussion is pretty fruitless. I watched one of those hour long " news "

>shows recently - maybe 48 hours, I don't recall now. In any case, it was

>right before Christmas and it was about faith. Oh yeh, I just remembered -

>it was a Barbara Walters special. In any event, she interviewed a geneticist

>who had done a study on people who have faith in a god, or were in some

>respect believers in the spiritual realm and those who weren't. He found

>that the believers have a genetic mutation that the nonbelievers don't have.

>

>Has anyone read anything about the possibility that genetics may predispose

>us to being believers or non-believers?

>

Believers in what, though? Certainly this is much broader than

Christianity. It may be broader than theism even. I may believe in

prana, chi, Om Nama Sivaya, Christ Consciousness, Great Spirit, or other

ideas of God. Buddhism is a major world religion that is non theistic.

Do Buddhists have this genetic mutation too?

Deanna

January 8, 2006

--- kristinmoke <kmoke@...> wrote:

> I feel an element of God's truth about how he

> intended us to be

> nourished is found in the work of WAP. It took a

> long time to weed

> through all the junk and only after arriving at

> Price's traditional

> wisdom, which immediately rang true to me, did I

> even fully realize

> the other stuff was junk.

>

You don't see WAP putting aside his preconceived and

conclusionary biblical beliefs for credible research?

None of the groups had biblical belief. How can their

truth ring true then?

Wanita

January 8, 2006

--- Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Has anyone read anything about the possibility that

> genetics may

> predispose us to being believers or non-believers? "

>

> And what exactly constitutes the test for a

> believer? Simply answering

> 'yes' to the question of whether they believe in

> God? How else could you

> test for anything else

Washington Times article

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm

God gene search. Gives gene name and question amount.

Book by geneticist.

Wanita

January 8, 2006

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Gene Schwartz

>

> " Oh, here's an interesting tidbit that might add further proof that this

>discussion is pretty fruitless. I watched one of those hour long " news "

>shows recently - maybe 48 hours, I don't recall now. In any case, it was

>right before Christmas and it was about faith. Oh yeh, I just remembered

>- it was a Barbara Walters special. In any event, she interviewed a

>geneticist who had done a study on people who have faith in a god, or

>were in some respect believers in the spiritual realm and those who

>weren't. He found that the believers have a genetic mutation that the

>nonbelievers don't have.

>

>Has anyone read anything about the possibility that genetics may

>predispose us to being believers or non-believers? "

BTW, I forgot to mention that the mutation correlated with differences in

the brain chemistry of believers and non believers.

>

>And what exactly constitutes the test for a believer? Simply answering

>'yes' to the question of whether they believe in God?

That would be ridiculous. I don't recall the specifics but IIRC it was a lot

more involved than simply asking if someone believes in God. Of course that

doesn't mean the screening was infallible, but then I'm not arguing it was.

I'm just relating what I recall of the program.

>Sounds like utter bull to me.

It could be, but since you don't know anything about it other than the

vaguest of details that I've related here, it would seem awfully illogical

of you to dismiss it out of hand just based on your own presuppositions.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

----------------------------

January 8, 2006

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Gene Schwartz

>

> " That ties in to a point I would like to add here. For atheism to be

>based in reason, it would logically be arrived at ONLY after one has

>examined the historical evidence that suggests the existance of a god. "

>

>There is such evidence? Surely if there were such evidence, there

>wouldn't be such need for faith.

Why not? I didn't say the evidence is 100% convincing, only compelling.

>Well, given that there is no evidence in everyday life (as far as I can

>tell) that there is a personal god, I would imagine that the burden of

>'proof' is on the believer. Where is the evidence? I think that most

>atheists would LOVE to be convinced that there is indeed a god. But,

>similarly for most irrational notions, I think that there is no

>overwhelming obligation to sift through all of recorded history to rule

>out that there might be some evidence. After all, it always might be in

>that next source...I think that it is rational to believe that if there

>indeed were EVIDENCE that there were a personal god, then this evidence

>would be pretty well known by now.

Just like the evidence supporting WAP-style nutrition is pretty well known

by now?

>As far as evidence of a non-personal god, what exactly would constitute

>evidence? I have no idea, personally. Do you?

No, it's not an area I've looked into, but I suppose the supporters of

Intelligent Design might have some arguments for evidence supporting their

view. I'm not saying they DO, I'm just suggesting that would be a place one

might start *looking* for evidence, which is not a commentary on whether

there IS any.

>

> " I tend to lean toward empirical proof before I believe something,

>rather than faith. For that reason I bought the book " The New Evidence

>that Demands a Verdict " by Josh McDowell. It's about 760 pages of

>historical evidence in support of Christianity. I've only read a small

>portion of it so far, but it does offer some compelling evidence,

>although of course, it doesn't *prove* anything. But it is interesting

>that this book was written by someone who set out to DISprove

>Christianty but upon serious investigation in his rush to disprove it,

>he became convinced that the historical evidence was contrary to his

>hypothesis. "

>

>Ok, I'm convinced. Give us something compelling please.

Sorry, I just feel totally uncompelled to give you anything ;-) But if you

really care (cough! cough!) then get a copy yourself and read the sections

on the empty tomb, which btw, is the basis for Christianity. Without any

empty tomb, there is simply no debate that Jesus was a mortal man.

>

> " Perhaps there is historical evidence for other gods, I don't know as I

>haven't investigated them. But the same principle would hold true -

>unless we do due diligence in investigating the historical evidence,

>then it would be unreasonable to conclude there isn't a god. And frankly

>I think the converse is jus as true - that belief in a god is not

>reasonable without at least some due diligence in examining the evidence

>for his/her existence. "

>

>Belief in god is not based on evidence.

Ah, you are speaking for the entirety of mankind. Glad you are able to do

that. Obviously for *some* people the evidence part is necessary to get them

to the faith part, such as the case with Josh McDowell, for instance. (Maybe

he had an unexpressed " God gene " just waiting to be triggered, LOL)

>

>You have very offered the claim that there is evidence that Jesus is god

>(I'm at a loss as to what else you could mean). That is a rather bizarre

>thing to say without actually offering some of this. Please - I'd love

>to be convinced of 'the STORY'. It really makes life so much easier.

>Please - offer us some " compelling " evidence.

See above.

Even if I felt compelled to offer you anything, which of course I don't, it

would take a great deal of time to pour over all the details (which are

extensive, ranging from the cloak to the identity of the tomb guards to the

dimensions of the stone covering the tomb, and so on), take notes and relate

them here. Hard to believe but I actually have other priorities at the

moment.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Beliefs/story?id=1411270

----------------------------

January 8, 2006

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Deanna

>

>>Oh, here's an interesting tidbit that might add further proof that this

>>discussion is pretty fruitless. I watched one of those hour long " news "

>>shows recently - maybe 48 hours, I don't recall now. In any case, it was

>>right before Christmas and it was about faith. Oh yeh, I just remembered -

>>it was a Barbara Walters special. In any event, she interviewed a

>geneticist

>>who had done a study on people who have faith in a god, or were in some

>>respect believers in the spiritual realm and those who weren't. He found

>>that the believers have a genetic mutation that the nonbelievers

>don't have.

>>

>>Has anyone read anything about the possibility that genetics may

>predispose

>>us to being believers or non-believers?

>>

>Believers in what, though? Certainly this is much broader than

>Christianity. It may be broader than theism even. I may believe in

>prana, chi, Om Nama Sivaya, Christ Consciousness, Great Spirit, or other

>ideas of God. Buddhism is a major world religion that is non theistic.

>Do Buddhists have this genetic mutation too?

Sorry, I don't recall the details. I don't think those who were determined

to have faith had it in one particular god, I just don't remember. Ah, here

we go, good ol' Google.

" Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health, tells

Walters he thinks he has figured out why faith comes easily to some, but

eludes others. His research suggests that some people may have a genetic

predisposition toward faith. " This particular gene controls certain

chemicals in the brain. And those chemicals affect how consciousness works.

They affect the way that our feelings react to the events around us, " he

said. "

Unsurprisingly, it looks like his work is quite controversial:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=16378

Faith in God is down to your genes, says Researcher

" Whether or not you are religious and believe in God is down to your genes,

says Dean Hamer, National Cancer Institute's Gene Structure Regulation Unit,

USA. He reckons Jesus, Mohammed (the prophet) and Buddha probably carried

the 'God Gene' in them. Church representatives have criticised Dean Hamer's

findings. "

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0607godgene.shtml

Author Dean Hamer Discusses His Research on the " God gene " at AAAS

Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist who has made the provocative proposal that

spirituality may be a product of our genes, discussed his work in a 26 May

lecture at AAAS and cautioned that his research says nothing about whether

God exists or not.

Hamer, chief of the gene structure and regulation unit at the National

Cancer Institute, is author of a popular book, " The God Gene: How Faith Is

Hardwired into Our Genes. " The book received extensive media attention when

it was published last year, including a cover story in Time magazine.

<snip>

Hamer has identified a single gene, called VMAT2, that he says is associated

with spirituality. But he quickly noted that there could be hundreds of

others involved. " I apologize for entitling the book 'The God Gene,' " Hamer

said. It was a snappy title but not the best from a scientific standpoint,

he said.

<snip>

Using DNA samples from the study participants, Hamer and his co-workers

looked at 10 candidate genes that might explain the differences between high

and low scores on self-transcendence. They focused on genes associated with

production of brain chemicals called monoamines that regulate mood and

conscious awareness.

Hamer found that a single change in the sequence of base pairs in the VMAT2

gene seemed to account for a difference in propensity toward spirituality.

Having the VMAT2 gene, and the feelings of self-transcendence apparently

triggered by it, does not mean that an individual will become an adherent of

a formal religion, Hamer said.

Although a tendency to spirituality may be hard-wired in the genes, he said,

that is no reason for some to deny the existence of God. " All that science

can tell us is how the brain gets these ideas and how it passes them along, "

Hamer said. " Whether or not the ideas are true or not, I have no idea and

science does not provide the answer. "

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics