Guest guest Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 I guess I disagree that it was silly. I thought the implication of the statement was clear, although from how this is dragging out I guess that was just me. Also, did I say that the shell shouldn't be eaten? People have been eating eggs and their shells for many, many years. Not my personal cup of tea, but I never said one way or another. Ken > > Ken, > > > 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. To use the > > term " the way God made it " does not necessarily imply a religious > > tone, or a silly tone for that matter. But, so what if it does. The > > meaning is clear. The writer simply meant that they appreciate foods > > in their most natural state. How is that silly? > > It's not the statement you quote that's silly. It's the way in which > it was applied. It completely left out the fact that God actually > made the egg with a shell. And he certainly didn't make it attached > to a frying pan. So is this how we should eat eggs? Bite into it > raw, shell and all? If the basic line of reasoning is carried out > without major selectivity, the silliness becomes pretty apparent. > > Chris > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 True. It's just that this has gone pretty far into the range of silly, and I didn't feel that my statement, or any other resulting from it, would contribute to anything. With that, please feel free to respond many, many times. Ken --- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote: > > Well, you couldn't stop me, but you said, " please don't respond " . I'm > not sure what the purpose of that would be, other than (to the best of > your ability) to preclude me from responding. Perhaps you meant, 'how > do you think the Giants will do this year? " . > > Actually, I don't see it as a matter of 'just' semantics... and > have addressed pretty much the same issue in their particular > styles, which most people find less annoying than mine. Please don't > respond. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Allyn, > I have been " watching " all the " comments " today over my " silly " statement > and I am sorry I said what I did. Not because I don't mean what I said but > because as I had mentioned this would be blown out of proportion and > discussed and torn apart and I personally think this is all ridiculous! Your statement is a very basic, fundamental one, and I was not blowing it out of proportion. The basic question -- should egg whites be eaten at all, and should they be eaten raw, or will this interfere with digestion and induce a biotin deficiency? -- is a very important one. It isn't nitpicking whatsoever to discuss it. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Well, I agree that little headway seems to be being made at this point, but I'm always astounded how people who claim that a discussion itself is silly are so willing to participate. > True. It's just that this has gone pretty far into the range of > silly, and I didn't feel that my statement, or any other resulting > from it, would contribute to anything. With that, please feel free to > respond many, many times. > > > > Ken > > > > > > Well, you couldn't stop me, but you said, " please don't respond " . > I'm > > not sure what the purpose of that would be, other than (to the > best of > > your ability) to preclude me from responding. Perhaps you meant, > 'how > > do you think the Giants will do this year? " . > > > > Actually, I don't see it as a matter of 'just' semantics... and > > have addressed pretty much the same issue in their particular > > styles, which most people find less annoying than mine. Please don't > > respond. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Rashad, > It put tons of biotin in the egg yolk. Egg yolks have one of the highest > concentrations of biotin found in nature. So it is likely that you will not > have a biotin deficiency if you consume the whole raw egg, yolk and white. > It is also clear, however, that if you only consume raw egg whites, you are > nearly guaranteed to develop a biotin deficiency unless you take a biotin > supplement. Didn't Mercola change his mind about this yet again? I have trouble keeping track which position is his current one. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Ken, > I guess I disagree that it was silly. I thought the implication of > the statement was clear, although from how this is dragging out I > guess that was just me. Also, did I say that the shell shouldn't be > eaten? People have been eating eggs and their shells for many, many > years. Not my personal cup of tea, but I never said one way or another. Not mine either. But, as I pointed out in my other post, it is also the same thing as eating a banana peel because God made the banana with a peel, or eating grains without soaking them because God made them unsoaked, and so on. You could, as you said before, substitute something about evolution for God and it would make no difference. It is the idea that in all circumstances foods should be eaten with the minimal amount of processing or change done to them, rather than the amount of processing or change that makes the food most nutritious and healthful, that is wrong. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2008 Report Share Posted April 13, 2008 Allyn, > This group used to be very interesting and there was lots of information to > be had but it appears to me that in the last couple months people are too > busy dissecting and tearing apart things people say and I don't think it has > been a good turn for this group. I used to be very involved in discussions > on this group but I find it now has come to just nit picking. Not to be a nitpicker or anything :-) but, while it still has its moments, this group, IMO, has mellowed out dramatically over the years. Check out archives and you will see what I am talking about. Nonetheless, your original point was very important and really needed to be discussed. From a religious perspective you ought to consider the fact that we are created in the image of God, and part of the glory of being God's creation is that we exercise a derivative creativity. It is not original. We do not create ex nihilo, but in possessing His image we exercise dominion over the earth and create analogically. It is part of the glory of being human. In other words, we do and eat very little as God originally designed it, nor do I think, are we meant to do such a thing. Christians, as an example, redeem and sanctify matter, and that of course means altering it, including food. I would hate one day going to communion and finding a wheat stalk sitting in the wine. Wait, the wine would have to be grapes, eh? And then the cup itself really couldn't be the shape we are accustomed to, since it wasn't found in the earth that way :-) From a nutritional perspective, I look at eggs as a type of seed, and like many seeds for optimum utilization they need to be processed in some manner before eating. Anyway, don't take offense. You raised a point and people came down on both sides. That is normally the way it works in communal debate/discussions of this nature. -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2008 Report Share Posted April 14, 2008 I found another article on which eggs to buy. Mercola has a link to another update on eating raw eggs on that page. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/11/08/what-are-the-best-\ type-of-eggs-to-get.aspx?PageIndex=1 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/02/9/raw-eggs.aspx On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > Rashad, > > > > It put tons of biotin in the egg yolk. Egg yolks have one of the highest > > concentrations of biotin found in nature. So it is likely that you will > not > > have a biotin deficiency if you consume the whole raw egg, yolk and > white. > > It is also clear, however, that if you only consume raw egg whites, you > are > > nearly guaranteed to develop a biotin deficiency unless you take a > biotin > > supplement. > > Didn't Mercola change his mind about this yet again? I have trouble > keeping track which position is his current one. > > Chris > > -- Rashad Tatum ---- " [W]e shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Henry on the fight for independence " The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people. " Freedom Under Siege, 1987 by Ron " I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. " - Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.