4

votes

'Body by God': Any thoughts?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 28, 2011 at 5:33 PM

I was reading through the 'Body by God' workbook and was surprised by the similarities to Paleo. Yes, they do recommend grains, but also recommend grass-fed animal products.

Some things that I remember from the workbook:

  • Eat your carbs earlier in the day
  • Dinner should be mostly fat and protein
  • Grass-fed beef, etc
  • Good oils, like coconut and olive
  • Lots of vegetables
  • The further it is from what God intended, ie the more processed it is, the worse it is for you
  • Get a little bit better day-by-day, instead of a big jump into it

I love paleo (all the great food that I can have), but have had issues when talking with my more 'religious' friends, so--as a Christian trying to bring my diet, faith, everything together--this is exciting to me.

Have you heard of it? What are your thoughts on it?

P.S. I really don't want this to be a religious debate. Thanks.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

i'm sure i buy stuff all the time from companies/owners that believe certain things i don't. like melissa says above, if you don't buy things from people that you disagree with, you will be severely limiting your resources.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 07:26 PM

But I will say, Jon, that if your claims are correct, and the author does deny evolution, the book is clearly pseudoscientific. I just haven't been able to find evidence to support that claim.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:48 PM

@Jack- Agreed. Good discussion. Thanks, to you both!

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:39 PM

we are Jae, on that point, but Ben makes a good point above where he starts with "That's fine Jae" Anyway I think we have all said our piece here. You are both my fellow Paleo people and I surely appreciate your perspectives, regardless of personal opinion. We've all made some pretty good points in these comments and I can see some aspects of it that maybe I couldn't see before this discussion. thanks for that.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:16 PM

@Jack: we are in agreement.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:16 PM

I don't think you understand what pseudoscience and science are.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:57 PM

@Jack Kronk- Yeah, that's fair. I did make a definitive statement. I didn't think about it in those terms. Thanks!

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:56 PM

That's fine Jae. "well, because it IS pseudoscience, not because I THINK it is"? Give me a break. Your system of scientifical thought is the product of mankinds own studies and deductions. The same can be said of religion. Human's have always just DECIDED what is true or not. It IS pseudoscience to you, ONLY because you THINK it is. Good talk, though.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:53 PM

The problem I have with downvoting damiro's question is that he doesn't make any statements to be disagreed with. Find a statement in his question that you'd like to influence with a downvote, and I will change my stance.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:53 PM

Ben, I agree that you that you should be able to speak your opinion specifically it is has to do with Paleo lifestyle, even if that opinion includes your faith. However, in your answer, you made a statement, and that statement opens you up to people disagreeing with you. I think people are justified to downvote your answer if they simply disagree that Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible. That's part of the coolness factor of the voting system. It allows people to influence with their opinion. (cont)

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:43 PM

"We could go on for hours pointing out flaws in your science, and my science" -- I am going to stop responding to you because I really don't know how to respond to this. You believe humans are not the product of evolution. "...why shouldn't it be included (whether or not you think it's pseudoscience)" -- well, because it IS pseudoscience, not because I THINK it is. Paleo has a bad enough reputation already in the conventional media. We don't need to add to it by encouraging pseudoscience on PH.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:21 PM

Of course you have the opportunity to speak you views, and I have mine. I just think it's silly to receive 4 downvotes over a disagreement (I think...no one commented) based on my belief system (which wasn't clarified-my bad).

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:20 PM

But Jae, it's all assumption based on theory, is it not? We could go on for hours pointing out flaws in your science, and my science. If it's encouraging to include evidence from a Biblical standpoint that is pro-paleo, why shouldn't it be included (whether or not you think it's pseudoscience). If it's that important, perhaps you should request Patrik creat a PH canon, that way I'll know better than to speak my beliefs. cont'

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:04 PM

I have no desire to "exclude" discussion of Body By God on PaleoHacks. All I ask is that I be given the opportunity to point out ways in which the book fails on scientific grounds. And I also ask that I be given the opportunity to argue that the Bible is a demonstrably unreliable piece of source documentation when it comes to nutrition and human health.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:03 PM

If I think homeopathy is reliable and sound, would it be "unfair" to exclude discussion of homeopathic medicine on PH? My gut reaction is that homeopathy is demonstrably pseudoscience and discussion of homeopathic remedies has no place on PH. And by "no place" I don't mean that the question should be closed down, but rather that if I ask a question about homeopathy or crystal healing, I expect PH to respond by saying that this is junk science or pseudoscience. I also expect PH to tell me if a pro-Paleo article is bad science.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:56 PM

But I am uncomfortable with phrasing the question as "I hold extra-scientific beliefs X, Y, Z -- can I reconcile Paleo with XYZ?" which is not what OP did, but it is what Ben essentially did in his response, and the main thing that I was reacting to.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:49 PM

Well, to be honest, I did consider downvoting this question, but I was ambivalent due to the issue that you yourself raised -- the question may be legit even if (I think) the book is (probably) not. I also attempted to point out that the book is not legit but my answer was deleted due my poor framing. I will make another attempt soon. But by far the thing I am most confused about is: what place do questions about pseudoscientific beliefs/books/practices have on PH? My evolving argument is now: it should be legit to ask "is X science or pseudoscience?" -- for example, oil pulling. (continued)

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:49 PM

i only support them because they sell pure cream and good butter. that's about it.

Medium avatar

(1029)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:36 PM

I support Whole Foods because mackey is a free-market libertarian.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:33 PM

further to that.. i was cracking up while writing my answer. i really had fun with that. Sherpamelissa said "I don't know what we can do".. so I thought... well then I'll have fun with this to draw even more attention to the situation. That's all.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:32 PM

that's funny that you didn't downvote it. i didn't downvote personman's magnet question either, which is totally gone now btw... anyway putting a magnet in your ear and asking if it will improve left brain functionality or some silly junk is pretty strange. However, I will say that is somebody else asked the same question, like maybe WCCPaul, I *may have* taken it more seriosuly. PersonMan has a string of oddball quesitons, lots of duplicates, zero votes for anybody's answers, and is constantly attacking people's answers in the comments. It's difficult not to question his intentions here.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:20 PM

I totally see your point of view. But since some members of PH do hold the Bible as a reliable piece of source documentation, it wouldn't be fair to exclude it. No member is forced to read any thread, why bother with one you KNOW you'll disagree with, fundamentally?

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:18 PM

I'm going to venture a guess that Jon's point was not that L7:23 is a good argument to make in favor of avoiding animal fat, but to show precisely that you can take any number of verses out of context in support of X position, and that this is precisely what he finds problematic about the BBG book. I'm not supporting Jon' position, just interpreting it. Jon doesn't give any citations for the claims that the author denies evolution and bases his dietary advice on scripture. In my limited research on the book, it's not clear where his dietary advice comes from. I don't think it's the bible tho

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:12 PM

I'm sure it can be helpful to some Christians. But I'm arguing that pseudoscientific thinking should NOT have a legitimate place of discussion on PaleoHacks, AND that this book is nothing but pseudoscience. (You are free to argue against me on either of those.) It is very unclear to me whether my argument holds sway with the moderators, and I cheerfully admit that my position may be misguided -- in which case I will back down, since I am obviously simply one member of PH and don't speak for the community.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:56 PM

Point taken, Jack. I can see your argument and I'm willing to say I might be wrong about downvoting this question. (Although for the record, I didn't actually downvote it.) Let me ask you this: PersonMan believes in magnets. He wants to know if magnet therapy is consistent with Paleo. Should his question be downvoted?

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:42 PM

continued: if that particular book is pseudoscientific and full of a bunch of terrible advice, then great! point that out in an answer and help everyone out! The question though, is good. And then we let damiro decide what he wants to do with his life / his faith / his diet accordingly.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:42 PM

well of course i know i'm not in charge here at all. but i disagree with both jon and jae. and i don't think the OP's question was religious. i look at it like this: fact: damiro claims to be a christian. fact: he read this book and is trying to make sense of it idea: ask his fellow friends on paleohacks if this book is a good way to maybe merge those 2 worlds together. why merge them together? because they ARE a part of his life, whether anyone on PaleoHacks agrees or not.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:33 PM

Do you think reconciling the Bible with X CAN be helpful? If not to you, to others who share my beliefs? It may not solely be scientifically helpful, but helpful nonetheless. It's not outside the confines of PaleoHacks' rules to mention reconciling X (factor related to Paleo) with something religious. So, why would a person with opposing views even bother with the thread? It seems like a waste of time.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:32 PM

melissa is correct. in addition to that, the context of that verse about not eating the fat of an animal is because you were supposed to put forth a worthy 'sacrifice'. eating the fat (the best parts) beforehand would not be a true sacrifice.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:24 PM

I don't assume that you don't believe in evolutionary biology. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression (although you are giving me that impression with your statement that you don't think humans were created via evolution... but I'll let that go for now). What I'm saying is that your STATEMENT that X can be reconciled with the Bible is scientifically unhelpful. I'm quite aware that Christianity is not monolithic, since I am friends with deeply fundamentalist Christians as well as hyper-liberal Christians. I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT in your answer, not about Christianity in general.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 29, 2011
at 02:21 PM

lol Jack you aren't in charge of making rules on the voting system. maybe religious questions don't belong here at all.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:14 PM

@Jae- Why do you assume that I don't believe in evolutionary biology? I think I answered damiro's question with my opinion. It's upsetting to me that because of assumption I was downvoted. I certainly believe in evolution, but I don't believe mankind was created by the evolutionary process. I don't believe the world is 4,000 years old. I suppose you can't know these things about me, but you can't make broad generalizations of Christianity. There are too many different views.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:10 PM

The Whole Foods thing is really bothering me. I am trying to minimize my purchases there but to cut them off completely would be painful. But shopping there knowing I am supporting that brand of crazy is painful too.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:56 PM

then you need to read my post about using the voting system. write a well articulated comment if you have something to say about the 'pseudoscientific-ness' of this book. But the OP's QUESTION is valid, and he is asking people's opinion about the book. It's a good question. It's within context. If it sparks a healthy debate about Paleo then it contributes to PaleoHacks in a postive way, even if most people commenting do not care for the book itself. Downvoting his question based on your preference about the book is pure nonsense.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:53 PM

You didn't offend me by talking about or believing in your religion. Some of my best friends and favorite family members are Christians. What does irk me is an unscientific approach to thinking about nutrition -- which is what got us into the whole mess of popularizing vegetarian and vegan diets and demonizing saturated fat.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:52 PM

But some of us do care, since evolutionary biology, AKA science, is the whole basis for how we think about food, AKA a mostly Paleolithic approach to nutrition. Without science, we don't have a way of objectively refining our knowledge of nutrition -- which is what many of us are interested in. If that doesn't interest you, that's fine with me -- hence, I didn't downvote you, and I'm happy to give dietary advice to newbies who don't care about the science -- but you should realize it's scientifically unhelpful to say that X can be reconciled with the Bible.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:49 PM

I didn't downvote you, but I'll leave a comment. The problem is that you said you "believe Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible." The main issue is that so can vegetarianism and any number of other dietary practices. Although you personally may disagree with vegetarian interpretations of the Bible, you can't objectively establish a right answer either way. So, it's not helpful from a scientific perspective to say that Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible. Now, you may not care, since you may be approaching Paleo from a non-scientific or extra-scientific perspective. Continued:

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:45 PM

I don't want to push you on this Melissa, but I hope "please don't turn this into a religious debate" doesn't mean that I can't criticize pseudoscience where I perceive it. Now, I understand that I need to do that politely instead of in an assholish way, and I WILL respect that.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:43 PM

I'm with Jon. If I think a question is about a pseudoscientific book or practice, I will downvote it just like people downvoted the question about magnets. And I hope nobody takes this as an attack on religion since I will go after pseudoscientific items that have NOTHING to do with religion.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 12:56 PM

Wow. That's not good. I know a lot of Christians like that, too. I got 4 downvotes for just believing in my religion.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 29, 2011
at 12:54 PM

Is this an out of context bible verse party now? You're just showing that two can play at that game, both you and the author. Or maybe you don't know that Leviticus is a Mosaic law book that the vast majority of Christians view as "fulfilled" so they don't have to follow it.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 29, 2011
at 12:52 PM

because, the OP asked for us not to have a religious debate and it would be nice to respect that

9cfa1ab909f6f89544be665d4ef6e3ea

on March 29, 2011
at 12:39 PM

For a lot of them, you offended them just by believing what you do and talking about it here.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 12:36 PM

Yeah...I mean, I don't really see how I offended or answered the question incorrectly.

9cfa1ab909f6f89544be665d4ef6e3ea

on March 29, 2011
at 12:18 PM

You've now met a lot of the flaming douchebags who might make me ashamed to be an atheist, if I cared what they thought.

F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on March 29, 2011
at 10:58 AM

There are perfectly valid reasons for downvoting, even if you do not see them, Jack.

F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on March 29, 2011
at 10:50 AM

If we are criticizing the dietary advice of a holy book written by an agrarian culture thousands of years ago as interpreted by wishful thinking of a modern guy, why shouldn't we point out other failings of the book? When criticizing the dietary advice of Dr. Kellogs, isn't it prudent to point out that he was also in favor of sexual abstinence and enemas for health reasons, or is that off limits because it would be disrespectful to vegetarians? Why does one type of bad advice command more misplaced respect than the other?

F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on March 29, 2011
at 10:07 AM

Why do we have to be respectful of holy-book based pseudo-science, when we can hack new age or "kooky" pseudo-science to bits? The bible is not even a good guide to morals in modern times, which is perfectly exemplified by Jae's comment. Why should it be any good as a diet guide, when it fails at it's most obvious task?

62b02f957f8761649d3f324419bdd4d6

(145)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:28 AM

And so is milk. Regardless, it's still a good basis for following a primal/ raw diet, if considering the Christian faith, like the OP asked.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:19 AM

well wheat is in genesis and it is no longer "God's" food. It's GMO.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 28, 2011
at 11:40 PM

Huh. Down votes and no comments. Lame.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 28, 2011
at 11:15 PM

that is so weird that he would do that. whole foods makes straight bank off their meats. seems pretty hypocritical or something like that.

E2b9c679315c7c9c7265783dde89f350

(1303)

on March 28, 2011
at 11:04 PM

Cain wouldn't have been so angry if he'd eaten enough sat fats.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 10:59 PM

Yeah, John Mackey is using the profits of his business to support veganism and animal rights, arguably a greater threat to my health than creationism

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on March 28, 2011
at 09:50 PM

Just wanted to add that I have NO problem with anyone's personal beliefs. What got me with TT was that these are not simply personal beliefs but they are using their profits and the business name to actively encourage Creationism. Once they bring the business into it they bring ME into it because their business gets my money. I feel at least some duty and obligation not to support things that I truly don't agree with. They can do as they please but don't involve me thank you very much.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on March 28, 2011
at 09:49 PM

I sort of laugh at my down vote. Figured I'd get at least one of those, lol. I really struggle with trying to buy from people who are doing things the right way as I see it. I'm currently debating the Whole Foods issue but Melissa you are so right. If I cut out all the stupid people I'm stuck with almost nothing. Paleo is hard enough with limited enough options that I may be cutting off my nose to spike my face.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 28, 2011
at 09:23 PM

this question had 3 upvotes earlier if I'm not mistaken. There is simply no valid reason to downvote this question. The author of the question does not pose anything controversial and inquiries in a respectful and on topic manner. damiro is not shoving his beliefs at anyone here. He simply shared that he was trying to bring his world of diet and religion together and is excited about it. There is no need to take personal issue with this.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:56 PM

"For every verse about meat, there are plenty about bread."= nice way to talk about skepticism. "The Bible also has verses about bestiality/wife beating/slavery" = not nice/respectful/doesn't answer the question.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:55 PM

you didn't answer the original question and you didn't respect the original poster's desire to not have a religious debate. Geez.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 28, 2011
at 08:54 PM

You deleted my answer as being assholish... but I'm not sure how I crossed the line. I had the same issue in the other thread (meaning, Patrik accused me of being an asshole, but I didn't understand exactly why). Do you have a problem with the content of my answer or the tone? Or both? If you want to take this discussion offline please email me at my first name @bloomingtonpowerfit.com -- and feel free to delete this comment if you like.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:54 PM

the next person who posts an attack on religion that is NOT AN ANSWER TO THIS question will be suspended for three days. Have some respect people, it says "I really don't want this to be a religious debate." I don't care if your answer is logical/smart/right, if it's not an answer to the question it doesn't belong here. If this is a topic that interests you I personally have a blog post coming up. You can also start a blog yourself.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:48 PM

don't be an asshole

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:25 PM

eeew, I remember when I thought Ezekiel bread was healthy...tore my stomach to shreds.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 28, 2011
at 08:18 PM

In Hebrew as in some other languages, "bread" is a synecdoche for "meal." So obviously not all the verses are about actual bread. But it's a sign that bread was eaten at (almost) every meal. But I'm sure it was sprouted Ezekiel bread, so perfectly Paleo.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:10 PM

I'll probably do a blog post about it, because I struggled for some time working with a farmer who was a big pusher of homeopathy which I strongly believe is quackery.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:08 PM

and no, I don't think we should have a thread on this topic. there are plenty of other places to discuss whether or not you should support businesses that have ideas you find repugnant.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:07 PM

a lot of farmers are creationists. It's not their fault they were brainwashed as children and just aren't very educated about biology. I grew up fundie and it (being a lifelong creationist) could have happened to me if my parents hadn't been ostracized from our church...so I try to be forgiving.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:04 PM

if you don't buy stuff made by stupid people you'll be stuck with supporting very few businesses....

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:03 PM

It's a stretch to make the bible a dieting book. For every verse about meat, there are plenty about bread.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:58 PM

"awkward use of Bible verses out of context to make them seem like diet advice" --nicely put. I argued in a previous thread that this diet was pseudoscientific but perhaps a better term for it would be poor scholarship.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:47 PM

FWIW, the author of the Maker's Diet is a supplement peddling snakeoil salesman. He happens to come close to paleo plus grains, but then decided to make a business out of selling dirt to people. Various fraud claims actually killed the first run of the book for false advertising and all of his degrees are from diploma mills. I read his book back when I first got Crohn's. He recommends an absurd amount of expensive supplementation as the "cure".

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:36 PM

@Shari- I'd love to have a thread about this topic, as well. I appreciate your inquisitive attitude. But last time we had a thread involving religion it went nuts with argument. Discussion was abandoned for spiteful attacks. It was bad.

9cfa1ab909f6f89544be665d4ef6e3ea

on March 28, 2011
at 07:33 PM

Thanks for this information. I hadn't yet bought anything from Tropical Traditions. As a lifelong atheist, I will now happily do so with a clear conscience.

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:29 PM

Very true last sentence.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on March 28, 2011
at 06:01 PM

Interesting. As an atheist, I could care less what the bible has to say about nutrition, but it is amazing how close they are to paleo. Other than the obvious grain problem, the only thing I might disagree with is having carbs early in the day (unless post workout). I would think that any carbs would be better later in the day. If I eat carbs early (like a baked yam for breakfast), I'm craving bad stuff all day. But a potato/rice with dinner is not a problem for me.

  • 626a0ddca599721f53b2c698a1a99f87

    asked by

    (181)
  • Views
    2.3K
  • Last Activity
    1279D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

12 Answers

7
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 06:16 PM

In the same vein there is

The Liberation Diet Haven't read it, but heard him speak at Wise Traditions and wasn't impressed with his awkward use of Bible verses out of context to make them seem like diet advice.

The Maker's Diet Also haven't read it, but I hear it's a Jewish version.

Our diet works, it makes sense a diverse group of people would discover it through trial and error.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:56 PM

"For every verse about meat, there are plenty about bread."= nice way to talk about skepticism. "The Bible also has verses about bestiality/wife beating/slavery" = not nice/respectful/doesn't answer the question.

F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on March 29, 2011
at 10:07 AM

Why do we have to be respectful of holy-book based pseudo-science, when we can hack new age or "kooky" pseudo-science to bits? The bible is not even a good guide to morals in modern times, which is perfectly exemplified by Jae's comment. Why should it be any good as a diet guide, when it fails at it's most obvious task?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 29, 2011
at 12:52 PM

because, the OP asked for us not to have a religious debate and it would be nice to respect that

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 28, 2011
at 08:54 PM

You deleted my answer as being assholish... but I'm not sure how I crossed the line. I had the same issue in the other thread (meaning, Patrik accused me of being an asshole, but I didn't understand exactly why). Do you have a problem with the content of my answer or the tone? Or both? If you want to take this discussion offline please email me at my first name @bloomingtonpowerfit.com -- and feel free to delete this comment if you like.

89e238284ccb95b439edcff9e123671e

(10299)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:29 PM

Very true last sentence.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:58 PM

"awkward use of Bible verses out of context to make them seem like diet advice" --nicely put. I argued in a previous thread that this diet was pseudoscientific but perhaps a better term for it would be poor scholarship.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:55 PM

you didn't answer the original question and you didn't respect the original poster's desire to not have a religious debate. Geez.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:25 PM

eeew, I remember when I thought Ezekiel bread was healthy...tore my stomach to shreds.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 28, 2011
at 08:18 PM

In Hebrew as in some other languages, "bread" is a synecdoche for "meal." So obviously not all the verses are about actual bread. But it's a sign that bread was eaten at (almost) every meal. But I'm sure it was sprouted Ezekiel bread, so perfectly Paleo.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:03 PM

It's a stretch to make the bible a dieting book. For every verse about meat, there are plenty about bread.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:47 PM

FWIW, the author of the Maker's Diet is a supplement peddling snakeoil salesman. He happens to come close to paleo plus grains, but then decided to make a business out of selling dirt to people. Various fraud claims actually killed the first run of the book for false advertising and all of his degrees are from diploma mills. I read his book back when I first got Crohn's. He recommends an absurd amount of expensive supplementation as the "cure".

F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on March 29, 2011
at 10:50 AM

If we are criticizing the dietary advice of a holy book written by an agrarian culture thousands of years ago as interpreted by wishful thinking of a modern guy, why shouldn't we point out other failings of the book? When criticizing the dietary advice of Dr. Kellogs, isn't it prudent to point out that he was also in favor of sexual abstinence and enemas for health reasons, or is that off limits because it would be disrespectful to vegetarians? Why does one type of bad advice command more misplaced respect than the other?

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:45 PM

I don't want to push you on this Melissa, but I hope "please don't turn this into a religious debate" doesn't mean that I can't criticize pseudoscience where I perceive it. Now, I understand that I need to do that politely instead of in an assholish way, and I WILL respect that.

6
62b02f957f8761649d3f324419bdd4d6

(145)

on March 28, 2011
at 06:23 PM

A buddy of mine put it simply: "Eat God's food, be healthy." That seemed to make the most sense to me in terms of my faith in Christianity. Stay away from the man-made stuff, at least for the most part, and we should be just fine.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:19 AM

well wheat is in genesis and it is no longer "God's" food. It's GMO.

62b02f957f8761649d3f324419bdd4d6

(145)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:28 AM

And so is milk. Regardless, it's still a good basis for following a primal/ raw diet, if considering the Christian faith, like the OP asked.

3
98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

on March 28, 2011
at 07:26 PM

I don't know what to think but I am interested in seeing how this discussion develops. I recently discovered that Tropical Traditions, as a business, is actively involved in promoting the Creationist agenda and have therefore stopped supporting them with my business. That was a very painful decision as I have been a loyal customer for years. I am fairly certain nothing I read here will change my mind about that decision (I cannot have my money going to further an idea I am so strongly against) but I would love to find some way to reconcile. at least to some degree, my beliefs and my lifestyle with those who believe very differently from me. I live in a very liberal area so I am not often challenged in this way so seeing things through a different lens is sometimes a huge challenge for me.

In the end though the goal of all of this is better health and if using a different language to support similar ideas gets people to make healthy changes I guess it's hard to find too much wrong with that.

Edit: I added this statement as a comment but it's off the main page now so thought I'd add it to my original post.

Just wanted to add that I have NO problem with anyone's personal beliefs. What got me with TT was that these are not simply personal beliefs but they are using their profits and the business name to actively encourage Creationism. Once they bring the business into it they bring ME into it because their business gets my money. I feel at least some duty and obligation not to support things that I truly don't agree with. They can do as they please but don't involve me thank you very much.

9cfa1ab909f6f89544be665d4ef6e3ea

on March 28, 2011
at 07:33 PM

Thanks for this information. I hadn't yet bought anything from Tropical Traditions. As a lifelong atheist, I will now happily do so with a clear conscience.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 28, 2011
at 11:15 PM

that is so weird that he would do that. whole foods makes straight bank off their meats. seems pretty hypocritical or something like that.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:10 PM

The Whole Foods thing is really bothering me. I am trying to minimize my purchases there but to cut them off completely would be painful. But shopping there knowing I am supporting that brand of crazy is painful too.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:07 PM

a lot of farmers are creationists. It's not their fault they were brainwashed as children and just aren't very educated about biology. I grew up fundie and it (being a lifelong creationist) could have happened to me if my parents hadn't been ostracized from our church...so I try to be forgiving.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:10 PM

I'll probably do a blog post about it, because I struggled for some time working with a farmer who was a big pusher of homeopathy which I strongly believe is quackery.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on March 28, 2011
at 09:50 PM

Just wanted to add that I have NO problem with anyone's personal beliefs. What got me with TT was that these are not simply personal beliefs but they are using their profits and the business name to actively encourage Creationism. Once they bring the business into it they bring ME into it because their business gets my money. I feel at least some duty and obligation not to support things that I truly don't agree with. They can do as they please but don't involve me thank you very much.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:04 PM

if you don't buy stuff made by stupid people you'll be stuck with supporting very few businesses....

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 10:59 PM

Yeah, John Mackey is using the profits of his business to support veganism and animal rights, arguably a greater threat to my health than creationism

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on March 28, 2011
at 09:49 PM

I sort of laugh at my down vote. Figured I'd get at least one of those, lol. I really struggle with trying to buy from people who are doing things the right way as I see it. I'm currently debating the Whole Foods issue but Melissa you are so right. If I cut out all the stupid people I'm stuck with almost nothing. Paleo is hard enough with limited enough options that I may be cutting off my nose to spike my face.

Medium avatar

(1029)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:36 PM

I support Whole Foods because mackey is a free-market libertarian.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:36 PM

@Shari- I'd love to have a thread about this topic, as well. I appreciate your inquisitive attitude. But last time we had a thread involving religion it went nuts with argument. Discussion was abandoned for spiteful attacks. It was bad.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

i'm sure i buy stuff all the time from companies/owners that believe certain things i don't. like melissa says above, if you don't buy things from people that you disagree with, you will be severely limiting your resources.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:49 PM

i only support them because they sell pure cream and good butter. that's about it.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:08 PM

and no, I don't think we should have a thread on this topic. there are plenty of other places to discuss whether or not you should support businesses that have ideas you find repugnant.

2
A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

on March 28, 2011
at 10:53 PM

this excellent article has been posted before:

http://www.reforminghealth.com/Wheat_and_the_Bible.pdf

The author knows how to properly exegete the relevant texts, and competently explain the historical circumstances surrounding the texts, etc. Highly recommended.

I love paleo (all the great food that I can have), but have had issues when talking with my more 'religious' friends,

I have had this issue at times, as well. On a related front, I was once an adament YEC (Young Earth Creationist) but have spent a considerable amount of time researching other views on the biblical narrative. I'm quickly arriving to the conclusion that the Genesis narrative, if for Christians taken as a divinely inspired record of true events and not just communal myths, doesn't really lend any details that rules out theistic evolution. And I mean in terms of evolution as generally consonant with the findings in several branches of science. Even moreso, the narrative seems to indicate it is merely dealing with a discrete but significant branch of human history; some details indicate the setting is a world already inhabited by human populations, and in fact presupposing the advent of farming techniques. The text's purposes is not to give a comprehensive snapshot of all history as it was, so I believe the debate is largely misguided.

For more info and healthy, informed discussion from Christians deeply involved in various sciences as well these questions, spend some time going through the journals and articles here:

http://asa3.org

As well as here:

http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/home.asp

So all this to say that since the biblical narrative is more narrow in its intent and content than many would believe, it is not a field guide to diet and nutrition. As wel,l the historical distance between then and now precludes comparisons to what probably were the available food sources then and our modern food sources.

.02

2
Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:39 PM

I like to look at the scientific evidence and then proportion my beliefs to that. It serves me well. If I assume a bias, even the paleo bias, I end up getting things wrong. Like eating grains. We are either smarter than god or god wants us to eat pathological foods. Or the other option. Probably that one.

1
F6c1df7d5699661bd1f0d6d0a6c17fc6

on March 29, 2011
at 09:50 AM

It is possible to get whatever information from scripture that fits your worldview with the appropriate filtering. I would think that the guy came up with his dieting concept first, and then post hoc found all the pieces of scripture that would fit.

First of all the paleo diet is based on research and evolution. The author of this book denies evolution and and has done no research. Secondly he bases his diet advice on the skewed interpretation of a thousands year old book written by an agrarian culture. Is it a good dietary decision to start with that base, and then skew it even more by saying "This is good advice, I only have to leave out the bread"?

It might be a good approach if you have to convert someone who has trained himself to be unreasonable. Then you can say: "God said so". In return he will tell you that God told you not to eat the fat of animals. (Leviticus 7:23).

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 29, 2011
at 12:54 PM

Is this an out of context bible verse party now? You're just showing that two can play at that game, both you and the author. Or maybe you don't know that Leviticus is a Mosaic law book that the vast majority of Christians view as "fulfilled" so they don't have to follow it.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:18 PM

I'm going to venture a guess that Jon's point was not that L7:23 is a good argument to make in favor of avoiding animal fat, but to show precisely that you can take any number of verses out of context in support of X position, and that this is precisely what he finds problematic about the BBG book. I'm not supporting Jon' position, just interpreting it. Jon doesn't give any citations for the claims that the author denies evolution and bases his dietary advice on scripture. In my limited research on the book, it's not clear where his dietary advice comes from. I don't think it's the bible tho

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:32 PM

melissa is correct. in addition to that, the context of that verse about not eating the fat of an animal is because you were supposed to put forth a worthy 'sacrifice'. eating the fat (the best parts) beforehand would not be a true sacrifice.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 07:26 PM

But I will say, Jon, that if your claims are correct, and the author does deny evolution, the book is clearly pseudoscientific. I just haven't been able to find evidence to support that claim.

1
03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on March 28, 2011
at 07:55 PM

Just quote Genesis 4: 2-5:

"And again [Eve] brought forth his brother Abel. And Abel was a shepherd, and Cain a husbandman [farmer]. And it came to pass after many days, that Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the Lord. Abel also offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat: and the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings He had no respect: and Cain was exceeding angry, and his countenance fell."

One thing you may run into, especially among Catholics and others who use a Communion host made of wheat flour, is the "If wheat was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for you" argument. To which the response is, "Wheat has changed a lot in 2000 years, becoming much higher in gluten. Also, people then didn't subsist on junk like Wonder Bread, Mac-and-Cheese, and Coke, damaging their metabolisms and setting themselves up for auto-immune reactions. If you've got a time machine, so I can go back and tell my mom to never feed me unsoaked/unsprouted grains, vegetable oils, or more than a little sugar, then maybe at 40-years-old a bite of wheat bread won't hurt me."

E2b9c679315c7c9c7265783dde89f350

(1303)

on March 28, 2011
at 11:04 PM

Cain wouldn't have been so angry if he'd eaten enough sat fats.

1
E2b9c679315c7c9c7265783dde89f350

on March 28, 2011
at 07:01 PM

I'm not familiar with Body By God, but it sounds as though it may be similar to The Maker's Diet? I haven't read that yet either, but my friend that gave me the kick start to eating real food was quite enamored with it for awhile.

I consider myself a WAPFer, though I mostly eat in line with Primal (lacto-paleo). I don't consider grains to be inherently evil- but most of us have become so damaged over the years that grains certainly do us no favors. We no longer properly prepare grains to reduce their anti-nutrients, we blast them with nasty pesticides and herbicides and many are gmo, and our modern wheat is not what they ate in Biblical times (they ate Emmer wheat- aka Farro- and Einkorn, which have a different sort of gluten and much lower amount, spelt is actually after the Bible, though not long after). I never liked legumes except for peanuts, and avoiding sugar isn't hard if you're not eating baked goods. :-)

As for problems when discussing Paleo with your religious friends, I recommend sticking to the science of it, rather than the evolutionary principle. When my mother brought up the argument of grains being eaten in the Bible, I said something along the lines of "Wine is in the Bible too, but you wouldn't tell a recovering alcoholic that they can have wine because it's Biblical, would you? There are some things that are fine for healthy people, but I'm not healthy."

If you know why you eat the way you do, stick to those reasons. The name is just a convenient way to sum up how you eat. "I'm Paleo", "I'm vegetarian", "I'm meatatarian", "I'm a Real Foodie". If you aren't sure why you're eating paleo, then I recommend doing a little experimenting to find out what your body responds best to. Cut out one element for 2 weeks to a month, no cheating at all, then re-introduce it. You may find that you do better on The Perfect Health Diet, or following this Body By God. Or, maybe you do better on strict Paleo or Primal. Once you know for certain how your body reacts to certain foods, it'll be a lot easier to explain to friends. "Oh no, black beans and rice really screw up my digestion! Please pass the Kerrygold and marrow!"

0
07c86972a3bea0b0dc17752e9d2f5642

on March 29, 2011
at 02:14 PM

Whatever gets people there. The devastating effects of high sugar, high grains, low fat and overly industrialized food warrants just about any kind of tactic you think might be successful. Religion makes me queasy and the fact that there are people who need it to decide if something is good or not annoys me, but I'm happy if it makes moving towards less grains, less sugar and more fat accessible to a good chunk of people. I know I came to paleo through WAPF, so I wouldn't dismiss something that allowed grains outright. It's a big step in the right direction.

edit: also, there is a heavy interest in going gluten free and grain free for health among WAPF -ish people that has nothing to do with "Paleo", and this would probably expose them to that.

0
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on March 28, 2011
at 10:59 PM

God clearly advocated against eating apples. SHe probably would have been ok with eating the occasional snake as well.

0
77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 28, 2011
at 08:38 PM

In response to Ben, who said that Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible and Christianity:

Yes, it can definitely be reconciled.

So can vegetarianism.

Not to mention

  • creationism, Intelligent Design, or evolutionary biology;
  • beating your slaves, or abolitionism;
  • killing your daughter if she has sex before marriage, telling women to keep their mouths shut, or feminism.

Of course, "reconciling" in this context means "hunting for passages that support your desired, pre-formed conclusions, and ignoring passages that contradict them." This is the definition of poor thinking and pseudoscience.

I have no problem with people discussing religion but when poor thinking and pseudoscience make an appearance on PaleoHacks, it really irks me.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 28, 2011
at 08:48 PM

don't be an asshole

0
A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 28, 2011
at 05:40 PM

I haven't heard of it, but I do see a lot of parallels between what Adam ate and Paleo. I have unique views of creation/evolution within the parameters of my Christianity, but I definitely believe Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible, and Christianity.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:53 PM

Ben, I agree that you that you should be able to speak your opinion specifically it is has to do with Paleo lifestyle, even if that opinion includes your faith. However, in your answer, you made a statement, and that statement opens you up to people disagreeing with you. I think people are justified to downvote your answer if they simply disagree that Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible. That's part of the coolness factor of the voting system. It allows people to influence with their opinion. (cont)

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:20 PM

I totally see your point of view. But since some members of PH do hold the Bible as a reliable piece of source documentation, it wouldn't be fair to exclude it. No member is forced to read any thread, why bother with one you KNOW you'll disagree with, fundamentally?

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:16 PM

@Jack: we are in agreement.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:21 PM

Of course you have the opportunity to speak you views, and I have mine. I just think it's silly to receive 4 downvotes over a disagreement (I think...no one commented) based on my belief system (which wasn't clarified-my bad).

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:57 PM

@Jack Kronk- Yeah, that's fair. I did make a definitive statement. I didn't think about it in those terms. Thanks!

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:39 PM

we are Jae, on that point, but Ben makes a good point above where he starts with "That's fine Jae" Anyway I think we have all said our piece here. You are both my fellow Paleo people and I surely appreciate your perspectives, regardless of personal opinion. We've all made some pretty good points in these comments and I can see some aspects of it that maybe I couldn't see before this discussion. thanks for that.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 28, 2011
at 11:40 PM

Huh. Down votes and no comments. Lame.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:49 PM

I didn't downvote you, but I'll leave a comment. The problem is that you said you "believe Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible." The main issue is that so can vegetarianism and any number of other dietary practices. Although you personally may disagree with vegetarian interpretations of the Bible, you can't objectively establish a right answer either way. So, it's not helpful from a scientific perspective to say that Paleo can be reconciled with the Bible. Now, you may not care, since you may be approaching Paleo from a non-scientific or extra-scientific perspective. Continued:

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:52 PM

But some of us do care, since evolutionary biology, AKA science, is the whole basis for how we think about food, AKA a mostly Paleolithic approach to nutrition. Without science, we don't have a way of objectively refining our knowledge of nutrition -- which is what many of us are interested in. If that doesn't interest you, that's fine with me -- hence, I didn't downvote you, and I'm happy to give dietary advice to newbies who don't care about the science -- but you should realize it's scientifically unhelpful to say that X can be reconciled with the Bible.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 12:36 PM

Yeah...I mean, I don't really see how I offended or answered the question incorrectly.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:43 PM

"We could go on for hours pointing out flaws in your science, and my science" -- I am going to stop responding to you because I really don't know how to respond to this. You believe humans are not the product of evolution. "...why shouldn't it be included (whether or not you think it's pseudoscience)" -- well, because it IS pseudoscience, not because I THINK it is. Paleo has a bad enough reputation already in the conventional media. We don't need to add to it by encouraging pseudoscience on PH.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:53 PM

The problem I have with downvoting damiro's question is that he doesn't make any statements to be disagreed with. Find a statement in his question that you'd like to influence with a downvote, and I will change my stance.

9cfa1ab909f6f89544be665d4ef6e3ea

on March 29, 2011
at 12:39 PM

For a lot of them, you offended them just by believing what you do and talking about it here.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 01:53 PM

You didn't offend me by talking about or believing in your religion. Some of my best friends and favorite family members are Christians. What does irk me is an unscientific approach to thinking about nutrition -- which is what got us into the whole mess of popularizing vegetarian and vegan diets and demonizing saturated fat.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:03 PM

If I think homeopathy is reliable and sound, would it be "unfair" to exclude discussion of homeopathic medicine on PH? My gut reaction is that homeopathy is demonstrably pseudoscience and discussion of homeopathic remedies has no place on PH. And by "no place" I don't mean that the question should be closed down, but rather that if I ask a question about homeopathy or crystal healing, I expect PH to respond by saying that this is junk science or pseudoscience. I also expect PH to tell me if a pro-Paleo article is bad science.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 12:56 PM

Wow. That's not good. I know a lot of Christians like that, too. I got 4 downvotes for just believing in my religion.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:33 PM

Do you think reconciling the Bible with X CAN be helpful? If not to you, to others who share my beliefs? It may not solely be scientifically helpful, but helpful nonetheless. It's not outside the confines of PaleoHacks' rules to mention reconciling X (factor related to Paleo) with something religious. So, why would a person with opposing views even bother with the thread? It seems like a waste of time.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:16 PM

I don't think you understand what pseudoscience and science are.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 03:12 PM

I'm sure it can be helpful to some Christians. But I'm arguing that pseudoscientific thinking should NOT have a legitimate place of discussion on PaleoHacks, AND that this book is nothing but pseudoscience. (You are free to argue against me on either of those.) It is very unclear to me whether my argument holds sway with the moderators, and I cheerfully admit that my position may be misguided -- in which case I will back down, since I am obviously simply one member of PH and don't speak for the community.

9cfa1ab909f6f89544be665d4ef6e3ea

on March 29, 2011
at 12:18 PM

You've now met a lot of the flaming douchebags who might make me ashamed to be an atheist, if I cared what they thought.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:04 PM

I have no desire to "exclude" discussion of Body By God on PaleoHacks. All I ask is that I be given the opportunity to point out ways in which the book fails on scientific grounds. And I also ask that I be given the opportunity to argue that the Bible is a demonstrably unreliable piece of source documentation when it comes to nutrition and human health.

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:24 PM

I don't assume that you don't believe in evolutionary biology. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression (although you are giving me that impression with your statement that you don't think humans were created via evolution... but I'll let that go for now). What I'm saying is that your STATEMENT that X can be reconciled with the Bible is scientifically unhelpful. I'm quite aware that Christianity is not monolithic, since I am friends with deeply fundamentalist Christians as well as hyper-liberal Christians. I am talking about YOUR STATEMENT in your answer, not about Christianity in general.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 05:48 PM

@Jack- Agreed. Good discussion. Thanks, to you both!

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:20 PM

But Jae, it's all assumption based on theory, is it not? We could go on for hours pointing out flaws in your science, and my science. If it's encouraging to include evidence from a Biblical standpoint that is pro-paleo, why shouldn't it be included (whether or not you think it's pseudoscience). If it's that important, perhaps you should request Patrik creat a PH canon, that way I'll know better than to speak my beliefs. cont'

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 04:56 PM

That's fine Jae. "well, because it IS pseudoscience, not because I THINK it is"? Give me a break. Your system of scientifical thought is the product of mankinds own studies and deductions. The same can be said of religion. Human's have always just DECIDED what is true or not. It IS pseudoscience to you, ONLY because you THINK it is. Good talk, though.

A8d95f3744a7a0885894ee0731c9744c

(3761)

on March 29, 2011
at 02:14 PM

@Jae- Why do you assume that I don't believe in evolutionary biology? I think I answered damiro's question with my opinion. It's upsetting to me that because of assumption I was downvoted. I certainly believe in evolution, but I don't believe mankind was created by the evolutionary process. I don't believe the world is 4,000 years old. I suppose you can't know these things about me, but you can't make broad generalizations of Christianity. There are too many different views.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!