Re: Interpretation of God + Raw Egg Safety

[Guest guest]

This is all a matter of interpretation. You immediately associate God

with religion, but I certainly don't. " God " is just a word. In my book

God is the equivalent of nature, the universe and energy. For other

folks " God " has a different meaning, so who is to say what the author

of the message meant?

As for eggs, I believe that foods eaten whole and in their natural

state is best for the most part. However, this is absolutely not the

case for everything. For example - would you eat a poisonous mushroom?

Just because it's from nature does not mean it's healthful.

--- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@...>

wrote:

>

>

> So the game is that you can respond, but if I don't like what you

> posted, I can't reply. Sorry - won't play that.

>

> I'm not sure I comprehend how the term, " the way God made it " was not

> religious in nature. If it isn't, please explain how it isn't. I

> believe that it was intended to be religious, as I understand the

> term. That does not necessarily imply denominational - but the

> implication was that a divine being created this food the way that it

> is, and that his has implications about the way that we as humans

> should behave, regardless of any logical or scientific evidence that

> may exist to the contrary.

>

> I'm not sure what a 'silly tone' is - I don't think that the statement

> had a silly tone, but I thought that it was silly, at least in the

> context of this forum not being a religious one.

>

> I know what the meaning of the statement was. However, in the context,

> the meaning was that they 'appreciated' foods in their most natural

> state, even if scientific evidence might show that it wasn't the most

> nutritious to eat, or even if it was shown to be harmful. Why - well

> because the big cheese created it in that form for us to eat.

>

>

>

> > I don't want to start anything, but I feel the need to reply. " The

> > statement in which God was evoked was silly " is nonsense.

> >

> > Anyway, please don't respond. I'm sorry for dragging out something

> > that should be past, but I felt the need to say something

[Guest guest]

The statement " God is just a word " doesn't say anything here. The

meaning of the word was quite evident in the original quote. All words

are 'just' words, and yet, they are more than that also.

I don't believe that it was used as an equivalent to 'nature, the

universe, and energy', the notion of which isn't incompatible with

science. However the notion that within nature, foods exist in some

state as created by " God " , and therefore must be nutritious in that

form, is most unscientific, and is religious in a broad sense. Not

Christian, or Buddhist, but requires some concept of a personal god

working for us. Else, why not foods which may have evolved with other

constraints than being the most nutritious in their whole,

unadulaterated form?

Nothing that I said implies to any degree that most foods are probably

better in their whole, unprocessed form. It was the most blatant

religious nature of the post, and its sheer illogicality and falsehood

that I objected to.

> This is all a matter of interpretation. You immediately associate God

> with religion, but I certainly don't. " God " is just a word. In my book

> God is the equivalent of nature, the universe and energy. For other

> folks " God " has a different meaning, so who is to say what the author

> of the message meant?

>

> As for eggs, I believe that foods eaten whole and in their natural

> state is best for the most part. However, this is absolutely not the

> case for everything. For example - would you eat a poisonous mushroom?

> Just because it's from nature does not mean it's healthful.

>

>

> >

> >

> > So the game is that you can respond, but if I don't like what you

> > posted, I can't reply. Sorry - won't play that.

> >

> > I'm not sure I comprehend how the term, " the way God made it " was

> not

> > religious in nature. If it isn't, please explain how it isn't. I

> > believe that it was intended to be religious, as I understand the

> > term. That does not necessarily imply denominational - but the

> > implication was that a divine being created this food the way that

> it

> > is, and that his has implications about the way that we as humans

> > should behave, regardless of any logical or scientific evidence that

> > may exist to the contrary.

> >

> > I'm not sure what a 'silly tone' is - I don't think that the

> statement

> > had a silly tone, but I thought that it was silly, at least in the

> > context of this forum not being a religious one.

> >

> > I know what the meaning of the statement was. However, in the

> context,

> > the meaning was that they 'appreciated' foods in their most natural

> > state, even if scientific evidence might show that it wasn't the

> most

> > nutritious to eat, or even if it was shown to be harmful. Why - well

> > because the big cheese created it in that form for us to eat.

> >

> >

> >

> > > I don't want to start anything, but I feel the need to reply. " The

> > > statement in which God was evoked was silly " is nonsense.

> > >

> > > Anyway, please don't respond. I'm sorry for dragging out something

> > > that should be past, but I felt the need to say something

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> The statement " God is just a word " doesn't say anything here. The

> meaning of the word was quite evident in the original quote. All words

> are 'just' words, and yet, they are more than that also.

>

> I don't believe that it was used as an equivalent to 'nature, the

> universe, and energy', the notion of which isn't incompatible with

> science. However the notion that within nature, foods exist in some

> state as created by " God " , and therefore must be nutritious in that

> form, is most unscientific, and is religious in a broad sense.

You know what's silly? Your reaction. The original statement could be

interpreted either

as an idiom, or as a statement indicative of the individual poster's personal

belief.

Either way, it's not up to you to police it. Who cares if you " believe " it was

one thing or the

other. This is NOT a list about breaking down the use of idioms, or disagreeing

about

matters of faith. It's a list about nutrition.

You chose to interpret the statement a certain way so that the rest of us would

be

reminded/alerted of where you stand on an issue that is unrelated to the actual

discussion. I'm not here to witness you trying to prove you're more " rational "

or

" scientific " than another person on the list because the original poster used a

turn of

phrase that you found a convenient jumping off point.

If she believes god made the egg so what? If she was using a metaphor so what?

It would be great if you could just stick to the topic, 'kthx.

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> The statement " God is just a word " doesn't say anything here. The

> meaning of the word was quite evident in the original quote. All words

> are 'just' words, and yet, they are more than that also.

Well, according to your theory of language, but language isn't a fact;

it's just a theory.

Chris

[Guest guest]

What are you talking about Chris?

First of all, I don't have a 'theory' of language.

Second of all, language isn't a statement, and therefore not a fact.

I'm not even sure what " language isn't a fact " means. Do you mean that

there is some doubt that it exists?

> Gene,

>

> > The statement " God is just a word " doesn't say anything here. The

> > meaning of the word was quite evident in the original quote. All

> words

> > are 'just' words, and yet, they are more than that also.

>

> Well, according to your theory of language, but language isn't a fact;

> it's just a theory.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > The statement " God is just a word " doesn't say anything here. The

> > meaning of the word was quite evident in the original quote. All

> words

> > are 'just' words, and yet, they are more than that also.

>

> Well, according to your theory of language, but language isn't a fact;

> it's just a theory.

Language plainly exists -- it's a fact according to any reasonable

definition of the word " fact " . And regardless of whether there's any

point whatsoever in chiming in on the subject as Gene did, I think

it's quite plain to everyone how the word " god " was meant in the first

place, at least in a broad sense.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Language plainly exists -- it's a fact according to any reasonable

> definition of the word " fact " . And regardless of whether there's any

> point whatsoever in chiming in on the subject as Gene did, I think

> it's quite plain to everyone how the word " god " was meant in the first

> place, at least in a broad sense.

Please forgive me. I was just trying to say something stupid.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Please forgive me.

Well, maybe. If you're extra-nice. ;-)

-

[Guest guest]

No. It wasn't just a 'turn of phrase'. It meant something, which, to my mind, is

antithetical to a rational consideration of how one should eat. I've explained

my position. Meanwhile, I don't see how your post is any less of a personal

attack than you consider mine to be.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " bacon.ette " <baconette@...>

>

> >

> >

> > The statement " God is just a word " doesn't say anything here. The

> > meaning of the word was quite evident in the original quote. All words

> > are 'just' words, and yet, they are more than that also.

> >

> > I don't believe that it was used as an equivalent to 'nature, the

> > universe, and energy', the notion of which isn't incompatible with

> > science. However the notion that within nature, foods exist in some

> > state as created by " God " , and therefore must be nutritious in that

> > form, is most unscientific, and is religious in a broad sense.

>

>

> You know what's silly? Your reaction. The original statement could be

> interpreted either

> as an idiom, or as a statement indicative of the individual poster's personal

> belief.

>

> Either way, it's not up to you to police it. Who cares if you " believe " it

was

> one thing or the

> other. This is NOT a list about breaking down the use of idioms, or

disagreeing

> about

> matters of faith. It's a list about nutrition.

>

> You chose to interpret the statement a certain way so that the rest of us

would

> be

> reminded/alerted of where you stand on an issue that is unrelated to the

actual

> discussion. I'm not here to witness you trying to prove you're more

" rational "

> or

> " scientific " than another person on the list because the original poster used

a

> turn of

> phrase that you found a convenient jumping off point.

>

> If she believes god made the egg so what? If she was using a metaphor so

what?

>

> It would be great if you could just stick to the topic, 'kthx.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Baconette,

> Either way, it's not up to you to police it. Who cares if you " believe " it

> was one thing or the

> other. This is NOT a list about breaking down the use of idioms, or

> disagreeing about

> matters of faith. It's a list about nutrition.

So why don't you focus on Gene's more salient point, and I think his

main point, that whether or not egg whites are good for us is a matter

of evidence and not philosophy, and that one cannot and should not eat

all foods in their least processed form? That's a nutritional point.

[snip]

> If she believes god made the egg so what? If she was using a metaphor so

> what?

I believe God made the egg too but I don't think that was Gene's

point, nor was it 's or my point either when we basically came to

the same conclusion as Gene. I think the point was that one cannot

discern what form God, or mother nature, or the universe, or anything

else, intended us to eat the egg based on the way the egg appears in

its completely unprocessed state, because maybe we are supposed to

process it. And, to extend the point, we process all sorts of other

things, and if we didn't, we wouldn't be following traditional

foodways and we'd be loading ourselves up with toxins, antinutrients,

and various inedible things.

Chris

[Guest guest]

You know, just based on observation of past conversations here, it seemed

like the original exchange about God was meant to bait Gene, not the

other way around.

AFAIK, God in casual English refers to the Judeo-Christian God when

capitalized. Otherwise one might use a lower-case god or the word the

godhead to refer to generalized ideas of god/nature.

Desh

[Guest guest]

Desh,

> You know, just based on observation of past conversations here, it seemed

> like the original exchange about God was meant to bait Gene, not the

> other way around.

Do you really find it that plausible that, in a conversation that Gene

was not participating in, someone would have made the statement that

they eat the egg together because that's the way God made it, for the

purpose of baiting Gene into the conversation? Someone, moreover, who

after the fact expressed no interest in debating Gene on the point?

> AFAIK, God in casual English refers to the Judeo-Christian God when

> capitalized. Otherwise one might use a lower-case god or the word the

> godhead to refer to generalized ideas of god/nature.

Or the Muslim god, or the god of any other monotheistic religions. I

imagine some deists might also use the term capitalized.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

This post seemed baiting to me, sorry, I should have clarified what I

meant:

>>It is so good there is one God, Creator of all things, or you would

never

>>have a reason to post. ROFL.

As for the issue with to whom the proper noun God refers to, we will have

to agree to disagree about this one. In a primarily Christian reference

culture, the semantic properties of the word God primarily reference that

culture. While I agree with you that other monotheistic religions have

adamantly worked to have our conception of God include Yahweh and Allah

et al., as you and I and most would agree that it should, I disagree that

they have accomplished this yet, based on linguistic evidence. The

majority of the time that God is brought up here, on this list (and in

our broader culture), the reference is the Christian God. I can't recall

the linguistic theorist, but he supposed further that language was not

only broken down into phonemes and morphemes, but that the abstract

symbols of language (the letters on the page) also contain the [dominant]

signs that they point to in a culture. So the word stop contains the

color red- red and a stop sign refer to each other in our language. As

does God and the Christian God. In a culture with no stop signs, red and

their word for stop would not refer to each other, similarly in a remote

polytheistic culture, the word God would automatically be a sign of

something else. Nameless theorist asserted that you cannot separate the

signs and the symbols of language easily, they are imbedded in culture.

Words are just words, except when they're not.

Desh

[Guest guest]

Desh,

> This post seemed baiting to me, sorry, I should have clarified what I

> meant:

> >>It is so good there is one God, Creator of all things, or you would

> never

> >>have a reason to post. ROFL.

But that post was not made by the original author and Gene had already

entered the discussion. So, it wasn't baiting him into the discussion

because he was already in it. I think, also, this person

misunderstood Gene's main point, which was not to criticize the

person's belief in God but rather the specific way in which she

applied that belief to nutrition.

> As for the issue with to whom the proper noun God refers to, we will have

> to agree to disagree about this one. In a primarily Christian reference

> culture, the semantic properties of the word God primarily reference that

> culture. While I agree with you that other monotheistic religions have

> adamantly worked to have our conception of God include Yahweh and Allah

> et al., as you and I and most would agree that it should, I disagree that

> they have accomplished this yet, based on linguistic evidence. The

> majority of the time that God is brought up here, on this list (and in

> our broader culture), the reference is the Christian God.

And the Christian God is not Allah and is not Yahweh? All the Arabic

Christians I know call God Allah.

> I can't recall

> the linguistic theorist, but he supposed further that language was not

> only broken down into phonemes and morphemes, but that the abstract

> symbols of language (the letters on the page) also contain the [dominant]

> signs that they point to in a culture. So the word stop contains the

> color red- red and a stop sign refer to each other in our language. As

> does God and the Christian God. In a culture with no stop signs, red and

> their word for stop would not refer to each other, similarly in a remote

> polytheistic culture, the word God would automatically be a sign of

> something else. Nameless theorist asserted that you cannot separate the

> signs and the symbols of language easily, they are imbedded in culture.

> Words are just words, except when they're not.

I really think you are theorizing too deeply about this. Of course

Allyn meant the Christian God by her statement because she is a

Christian. And of course if we didn't already know that, we could

assume by probability that that is what she meant because by

probability indicates a greater chance of her being Christian than

not. However when I am talking to my Jewish housemates or my Muslim

classmates and the word " God " is used, I don't take them to

specifically mean the Christian God.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Well, I did take some linguistics so that info just pops up in my mind-

goes with that useless English degree (and I was a theory wonk).

Language constructs reality in many ways; I'm not sure I'll ever stop

thinking about it in detail.

Desh

[Guest guest]

Desh,

If you would care to contact me off group I would love to hear more

about that.

Something tells me there would be a lot of wisdom to be gleaned from

such a study.

> Language constructs reality in many ways

> Desh