Re: RELIGION God + Raw Eggs

[Guest guest]

--- Riki <therikster@...> wrote:

> 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?

Riki, I agree with your view of God and Nature being equivalent. But

I also think most people associate the term " God " or " Allah " or

" Yahweh " , or whatever you want to call IT, with religion.

> 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?

Yes, another example that comes to mind is pufferfish, which is a

delicacy in Japan and Korea, but if not carefully prepared is lethal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pufferfish

People like to talk about " whole food " , but very little of the food we

eat is truly " whole " . Most of what we eat is just a *part* of a whole

organism, such as the leaves, or the seeds, or the flesh. A more

realistic term would be " minimally processed " food. To me, removing

the egg shell and the egg white is " minimal processing " . Blending the

egg yolk into a smoothie is further processing. Boiling the egg yolk

would is an even higher level of processing and may change the level

of nutrients in the egg yolk. Mixing it into a cake and cooking it at

400F is an even higher level of processing and nutrient modification.

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

This is very true. Toxins are quite natural and can be quite deadly

Mother Nature created both good and evil

[Guest guest]

-

> Riki, I agree with your view of God and Nature being equivalent. But

> I also think most people associate the term " God " or " Allah " or

> " Yahweh " , or whatever you want to call IT, with religion.

Yes, scientists sometimes like to talk of the " god of order " , by which

they mean essentially the physical laws of the universe, not a

personal deity, and Einstein's famous (and widely misunderstood)

statement that God doesn't play dice in fact referred to this

impersonal, non-sentient order, but the vast majority of people

interpret " God " to mean a deity in accordance with one of the major

(or minor) religions, and frankly I think even using the word " god " in

the sense that some non-theistic scientists do is a misleading mistake.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Yes, scientists sometimes like to talk of the " god of order " , by which

> they mean essentially the physical laws of the universe, not a

> personal deity, and Einstein's famous (and widely misunderstood)

> statement that God doesn't play dice in fact referred to this

> impersonal, non-sentient order, but the vast majority of people

> interpret " God " to mean a deity in accordance with one of the major

> (or minor) religions, and frankly I think even using the word " god " in

> the sense that some non-theistic scientists do is a misleading mistake.

There's a letter from someone who was a friend of Lincoln who was

adamant that this is what Lincon meant by " God " too. I cant' remember

what I found it on though.

It appears that some 62% of natural scientists believe in God, however:

http://www.physorg.com/news5785.html

Chris