Re: fresh vs raw, God and nature

[Guest guest]

A secular way of saying it is to replace " God " with " nature " , although

you are still implying agency on the part of nature, essentially

positing a greater being behind nature, which some might disagree with.

Even if nature has no and never had any intent (if it's the way it is

because it just is), it makes more sense to eat in accord with what

our ancestors ate for millenia. Our bodies did not evolve to handle

highly processed food, and it takes much more than 75 or 100 years for

a species to adapt to a drastically different diet. This also applies

to cows--even before they were domesticated, they were grass-eating

ruminants who roamed freely. Only in the last century have they been

forced into confinement and stuffed with grains and antibiotics. So

you can't expect cows treated thus to be healthy or happy, and you

can't expect their meat or milk to be a very good product. It's akin

to putting diesel fuel in a car with a gasoline engine. Problems.

Anyway, I'd just like to say an NT way of eating is utterly logical

whether you believe in a God or not!

Tom

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> > " Properly handled fresh, unprocessed milk from healthy cows

> grazing on organic pasture is as God intended it! " There you go!

>

> > Sara

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> That's great! And it can easily be converted to a noun phrase by

> dropping the copula. I really like the tie-in with the " intent of

> God " concept; there's a variant of that concept for just about any

> worldview and it's is a deep message that should hit home with a lot

> people, making it consistent with their belief systems. If they

> thought about it, nobody would think that God envisioned huge milk

> factories with stainless steel processing equipment and cows confined

> to stalls! It's so obvious! It's these kinds of self-evident

> overarching ideas that make me feel like I'm on the right track with

> all this food/health stuff.

>

> Mike

> SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

> A secular way of saying it is to replace " God " with " nature " ,

although

> you are still implying agency on the part of nature, essentially

> positing a greater being behind nature, which some might disagree

with.

> Tom

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Hi Tom,

That's a good point. I wanted to gloss over those details of belief

systems, so I had very loose variants in mind, where the agency or

intentionality is just a metaphor for " the way things have been for a

long time " or " the ways things would be if left to themselves in the

absence of technological artifice " . I like to go along with people's

intuitive ways of conceptualizing things because they can usually be

translated into a believable literal version if necessary, but are

more convenient and better for general communication as they are. I

think the " God " terminology is nice because most people use it

literally and almost everybody understands it and can use it

accurately in context if they want to. Since not everybody enjoys

splitting hairs like I do, I save that for the right occasions...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania