Jump to content

Favorite fruits and vegetables


Lucian Hodoboc

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JosephM said:

Perhaps we can all agree that a majority of humans have evolved or adapted to be omnivores but that they may choose to be frugivores and can thrive on either diet?

Joseph

This is how I might have worded your post.

Perhaps we can all agree that humans have evolved and adapted to be omnivores and that they can choose many diets and can thrive on a variety of these diets?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, romansh said:

When you say 'best' … what do you mean by 'best'? Meat is easier to digest and richer in protein than most of common foodstuffs.

Best as in what food types most benefit our body and digestive structure.  For instance, we may be able to eek some nutrition from grass but we'd probably be best off eating other more nutritionally rich foods that our bodies have evolved to better utilise than grass.

12 hours ago, romansh said:

If you mean how little it can probably be then I would agree with you. In evolution there is no should. I quoted the wiki article contrasting vegetarians with comparable practicing meat eaters. There is little 'benefit' one way or the other in terms of longevity. Also from an evolutionary point of view to be 'successful' we don't care if we see our grand children, only that we have them.  So I don't buy the argument that evolution has done something therefore we should comply with that something.

I use the term 'should' like I have above with 'best'.  To me it makes sense that if our bodies have evolved to benefit the most from certain types of food, then it makes sense that our bodies would benefit more from eating those types of foods than if we were to veer off to other foods which may provide some degree of survival nutrition but they may also make it harder for our bodies and thus may introduce other diseases or ill health (cancer, ulcers, reflux, etc).

12 hours ago, romansh said:

Fair enough. I am not arguing that we should eat meat. I am arguing that humans are classic omnivores and the argument that humans are not omnivores is at best specious. Also I am not enamoured by argument by herbivores came before omnivores, therefore [insert any 'should type' argument here]. Also be careful of the term adaption when talking about evolution. As an example if we move to a higher altitude our bodies will acclimatize to the higher altitude. The acclimatization is not an adaption; but the ability acclimatize is. Similarly our bodies can get used a high meat diet, this is not an adaptation, but the ability is an adaptation. And if we were Inuit, we moved to herbivorous culture, we too would get used to the little meat diet. An acclimatization.

Fair enough.  I appreciate the explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are nearing the end. 

Eating a healthy diet will minimize the health costs on society. I can buy into that. Meat can be part of that healthy diet. How much is up for some debate, but there seems to be no difference between say a vegetarian and a more typical diet; at least based on longevity. There are other costs on society as well which we have not touched on as of yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, romansh said:

There are other costs on society as well which we have not touched on as of yet.

Indeed, probably none less so than the environmental impact and costs associated with raising meat for food as opposed to a vegetarian diet.

Maybe more importantly though, is what if Hinduism is on the money and God is a cow?  Do you think cow-God will be happy with all these meat eaters! 

I think Judaism may have been onto veganism early as Genesis reports that God specifically created animals to be 'helpers and companions' of man rather than food.  In fact, God even pronounced that He had given every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; as food for man, but no mention of meat for food.  Perhaps God's wrath will come upon those who eat meat! 

Perhaps embodying the love of Jesus should include being kind to other sentient beings rather than slaughtering them and tearing apart their flesh for our own satisfaction rather than need!  You can see how my early childhood zeal for evangelicalism can easily be transferred to a diet-related subject :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, romansh said:

Body of Christ?

Wine to represent his blood and only bread to represent his body!  A good steak might have been more realistic for his body, but we can only speculate that Jesus was actually vegan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

Wine to represent his blood and only bread to represent his body!  A good steak might have been more realistic for his body, but we can only speculate that Jesus was actually vegan!

Nah! He would have been nowhere as popular if he was a vegan. Maybe it is written in some as yet undiscovered apocryphal gospel somewhere?

And how long did people adhere to transubstantiation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am the Steak of Life" just doesn't have the same ring as "I am the Bread of Life." 

As for Jewish vegans: well, who knows, Genesis is a mythological story and besides that, even if taken literally, it was 'before' the Fall, afterwards everything changed.

If God's wrath comes for the meat eaters that must include his chosen people and his 'son.'

As for transubstantiation, it is still the Catholic belief today: a change in substance while the accidents of bread and wine remain.  A nice try based in the philosophical terms of the time but for some, today, transsignification makes greater sense. While others consider it 'merely symbolic.'

Edited by thormas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, romansh said:

Nah! He would have been nowhere as popular if he was a vegan. Maybe it is written in some as yet undiscovered apocryphal gospel somewhere?

I have it on good authority that there is a work directly written by Jesus titled "The Narrow Way Is Through The Vege Garden". 

Perhaps, like much of the Jesus message, later authors attributed meat eating stories to Jesus in order to make him more attractive to outsiders!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I have it on good authority that there is a work directly written by Jesus titled "The Narrow Way Is Through The Vege Garden". 

Perhaps, like much of the Jesus message, later authors attributed meat eating stories to Jesus in order to make him more attractive to outsiders!

That's odd because the Secret Greek Gnostic writings of Veganarius indicate that veganism was the established practice of the pagans, or at least those in the know. Thus Jesu' Narrow Way would have been at home and easily accepted in the pagan world. This excludes the aristocratic Romans who were notorious for eating meat thus the persecutions of the Christians over their choice of food. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I have it on good authority that there is a work directly written by Jesus titled "The Narrow Way Is Through The Vege Garden". 

Must be true … in that it is contradictory to the fattened calf and prodigal son story. I am sure the will be some apologist along in a minute or two to explain the contradiction and how we are interpreting these incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service