RE: Re: composition of whey/acid vs sweet whey

[Guest guest]

it probably hit you in the head lol

could imagine the size of them

_____

From: Tom [mailto:cassiusdio@...]

Sent: Monday, 15 December 2003 5:35 PM

Subject: Re: composition of whey/acid vs sweet whey

Um, Mike, all mammals give milk, by definition...

But I'm with you in that I've never pictured a whale giving milk. I

wonder where their nipples are.

Tom

--- In , " Anton " <

> One final remark is that the third link from has a chart

> comparing many different animal's milk, and I didn't even realize

> that half of them even made milk! So many opportunities for

> culinary experimentation! I can only wonder what whale's milk tastes

> like... not to mention wonder what it's like to milk a whale...

>

> Mike

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/15/03 9:55:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, bwp@...

writes:

> I kind of remember hearing something like that before, but I really

> don't have a biology background. My knowledge filter was probably a

> little off-kilter when I was young and I was supposed to learn all

> this basic background world knowledge stuff. Sometime I'm going to

> read a high-school biology textbook. But it's strange you never

> hear about all those other milks out there, like rat's milk or cat's

> milk. Maybe I just don't hang around in the right crowds.

Don't waste your time; get a college-level General Biology text. I never

even took high school biology, and I have an A in my college class, even though

I

rarely, rarely go to class. You're at least as intelligent as I am.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Most whales have two nipples. One under each pectoral fin. If you milk one

please take video, I would love to see it. Amy

Re: composition of whey/acid vs sweet whey

> Um, Mike, all mammals give milk, by definition...

>

> But I'm with you in that I've never pictured a whale giving milk. I

> wonder where their nipples are.

>

> Tom

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

I kind of remember hearing something like that before, but I really

don't have a biology background. My knowledge filter was probably a

little off-kilter when I was young and I was supposed to learn all

this basic background world knowledge stuff. Sometime I'm going to

read a high-school biology textbook. But it's strange you never

hear about all those other milks out there, like rat's milk or cat's

milk. Maybe I just don't hang around in the right crowds.

Mike

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/18/03 1:28:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, bwp@...

writes:

> i think there's

> also some judeo-christian hocus-pocus about eating them.

I suggest, then, that you familiarize yourself a little better with

judeo-christian hocus pocus. While there are some weird historical comments

about

Vikings eating horse until they were Christianized, it is quite enshrined in

Christianity that it is evil to forbid the eating of *any* food.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi,

> Anyway, Christianity and Judaism differ in this essential point of law and

> grace. Thus, when early Christians were trying to force the Judaic

dietary

> laws on one another, stepped in and said that as a Christian under

the

> new covenant, it was wrong to forbid foods for religious reasons. To do

so

> implies a lack of understanding of grace, and makes Christianity about

> following rules... the very thing Christ came to change. Making

Christianity

> about rules (legalism) makes Christ's sacrifice meaningless... and though

> many Christians do it, it is wrong.

>

> So the " judeo " part of the hocus-pocus comment was accurate, but the

> " Christian " part wasn't (though many people throughout history have

> forbidden foods in the " name " of Christianity, I'm sure).

Wow, , what an interesting post! Thank you.

There are some direct quotes from the bible here which (as I understand) are

backing up what you say.

http://www.togodbetheglory.com/Poular%20Bible%20Doc/Forbidden%20Foods.html

There are often stories in the UK news about horses being shipped to France

for consumption, under crowded and miserable conditions, and I was surprised

to learn recently that the US also ships horses to France (where often

they're eaten raw!!). This seemed so bizarre that I momentarily forgot how

much lamb we (uk) import from NZ...

Helen

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/18/03 7:39:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I agree it is technically forbidden to forbid foods ... a lot

> of sects decided to pick up on the Torah rules anyway,

> for health reasons. I've heard preachers talk about

> how pork should be avoided, not to keep kosher, but

> because the rules about pork were given by God

> for health reasons. Which isn't something from the

> Old or New Testament, just a religious fad of sorts.

>

> Jewish folks I've talked to adamantly deny this ...

> and say the kosher rules are for showing obedience

> etc., not for health.

So have the entire chain of Christian commentators for thousands of years,

until very, very recent in the modern era.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/18/03 3:19:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Wasn't forbidding Catholics to eat meat on Friday forbidding foods

> for religious reasons?

No. Not in the same sense. What Christianity forbids is the disdain or

forbidding of foods due to a belief in the uncleanliness of the food itself, or

due to some immorality inherent in eating the food per se. Abstaining from meat

on Friday's is not abstaining from meat per se. Clearly one who eats meat on

Monday's finds nothing immoral or unclean about meat.

The Church (Orthodox/Catholic) and the " Church Fathers " were very clear on

this-- fasting is a tool one uses to attain purity of heart and has nothing

whatsoever to do with any morality connected to the consumption of the foods

fasted from.

I will provide evidence at your previous behest for this in a couple of days.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> So the " judeo " part of the hocus-pocus comment was accurate, but the

>> " Christian " part wasn't (though many people throughout history have

>> forbidden foods in the " name " of Christianity, I'm sure).

I agree it is technically forbidden to forbid foods ... a lot

of sects decided to pick up on the Torah rules anyway,

for health reasons. I've heard preachers talk about

how pork should be avoided, not to keep kosher, but

because the rules about pork were given by God

for health reasons. Which isn't something from the

Old or New Testament, just a religious fad of sorts.

Jewish folks I've talked to adamantly deny this ...

and say the kosher rules are for showing obedience

etc., not for health.

A LOT of the things one associates with Christianity,

or Judaism, for that matter, were never in the original

documents. The whole war between the Protestants

and Catholics, for instance, or the quest for the Holy

Grail. Or the persecution of witches. In our era, a lot

of the issues fought for by the Right in the name of

Christianity aren't really in scripture at all ...

I don't know if, in that case, it is fair to say it is a " Christian " thing ...

if most " Christians " are fighting for something but

it isn't exactly in the Bible, except by remote interpretation.

Like extrapolating " don't cook meat and milk in the same

pot " from " don't cook a calf in the mother's milk " -- it's

a Jewish Kosher rule that you need 2 sets of pots,

but only the second phrase is in the Torah.

Also ... a lot of churches now are sponsoring group

" diets " along religious lines, that your " body is

a temple " and therefore needs to be fed well.

Which has a certain motivational factor to it ... however

the diet they follow is low-fat/food pyramid based. So now you

have a church emphasizing a certain kind of diet ...

which folks HERE would say is an ill-concieved

diet, and some folks might then think that low-fat

diet is thereby more " blessed " than some other

diet, and eating more fats is " evil " .

Mixing faith and science gets really complicated!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/19/03 1:16:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> So, you mean 'Yes, but for different reasons', don't you? Obviously I knew

> that, I was just trying to get some clarification, which I received in a

> previous post. So, thank you again for your gratuitous argumentation.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were asking this as a direct

reference to the " forbidding of forbidding " foods, in which case, it is not an

example of that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

So, you mean 'Yes, but for different reasons', don't you? Obviously I knew

that, I was just trying to get some clarification, which I received in a

previous post. So, thank you again for your gratuitous argumentation.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:02:34 EST

Subject: Re: Re: composition of whey/acid vs sweet whey

In a message dated 12/18/03 3:19:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Wasn't forbidding Catholics to eat meat on Friday forbidding foods

> for religious reasons?

No. Not in the same sense. What Christianity forbids is the disdain or

forbidding of foods due to a belief in the uncleanliness of the food itself,

or

due to some immorality inherent in eating the food per se. Abstaining from

meat

on Friday's is not abstaining from meat per se. Clearly one who eats meat

on

Monday's finds nothing immoral or unclean about meat.

The Church (Orthodox/Catholic) and the " Church Fathers " were very clear on

this-- fasting is a tool one uses to attain purity of heart and has nothing

whatsoever to do with any morality connected to the consumption of the foods

fasted from.

I will provide evidence at your previous behest for this in a couple of

days.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I was responding to a specific quote in a specific email, in an attempt to

clarify the issue for me. The quote I was responding to was clear , and so

was my response. The Catholic prohibition from eating meat on Friday WAS a

forbidding of certain foods for religious reasons.

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:20:01 EST

Subject: Re: Re: composition of whey/acid vs sweet whey

In a message dated 12/19/03 1:16:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> So, you mean 'Yes, but for different reasons', don't you? Obviously I knew

> that, I was just trying to get some clarification, which I received in a

> previous post. So, thank you again for your gratuitous argumentation.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were asking this as a direct

reference to the " forbidding of forbidding " foods, in which case, it is not

an

example of that.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

While I'm really not interested in the larger argument, I think it's fair

to call forbidding a food on certain days forbidding a food even if it's a

stricture of a somewhat different magnitute from, say, the Muslim and

Jewish prohibitions against pork.

>Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were asking this as a direct

>reference to the " forbidding of forbidding " foods, in which case, it is

>not an

>example of that.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/19/03 1:20:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> While I'm really not interested in the larger argument, I think it's fair

> to call forbidding a food on certain days forbidding a food even if it's a

> stricture of a somewhat different magnitute from, say, the Muslim and

> Jewish prohibitions against pork.

It's qualitatively different. The Jewish prohibition of pork considers pork

" unclean. " Now the meaning of " unclean " is debatable but this discussion

arose as a discussion of *taboos*. In other words, does Christianity consider

it

immoral to eat horse meat.

Yes, this is a forbidding of foods for religious reasons. But the issue was

more specific than that. I had wrongly interpreted Gene to be referring to

the specific issue, rather than the more general wording he used.

Chris

>

> >Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were asking this as a direct

> >reference to the " forbidding of forbidding " foods, in which case, it is

> >not an

> >example of that.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/20/03 1:07:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> No, I don't think it was. The issue was just whether Christianity ever

> forbids any foods, and it does, end of story.

No, that isn't and wasn't the issue , and that isn't the end of the

story. Think back: the question was whether our inherited cultural foodway

wherein

horsemeat is not considered food could be due to Judaeo-Christian taboos on

certain foods.

Christianity doesn't prohibit certain foods, and considers the prohibition of

certain foods as sinful. Christianity does regulate eating patterns of

certain foods, at least in large branches of it, but there is no way for, say, a

rule against eating horse meat on friday to lead to a culture in which horse is

considered unfit to eat.

I'm sure you can see the clear difference, vis a vis the issue at hand,

between this kind of rule, and say, Jewish or Muslim proscriptions of pork,

which

would quite clearly lead to a culture in which pigs were either not raised or

raised for some non-food purpose.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

No, I don't think it was. The issue was just whether Christianity ever

forbids any foods, and it does, end of story.

>Yes, this is a forbidding of foods for religious reasons. But the issue was

>more specific than that.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/18/03 1:45:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Well, certainly in the Old Testament there are passages that forbid

> the eating of certain foods, aren't there?

I don't think horses is one, but Christianity quite clearly overturned all of

these food requirements, so it would be more like " Judaeic " than

" JuadaeoChristian "

>

> Where in Christianity is it " enshrined " that the forbidding of " any "

> food is " evil " ?

Well, to start,:

" The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city,

went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. And he became hungry

and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a

trance and saw the heaven opened, and something descending like a great sheet,

let down by four courners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals

and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him, " Rise, ;

kill and eat. " But said, " No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything

that is common or unclean. " And the voice came to him again a second time,

" What God ha cleansed, you must not call common. " This happened three times,

and

the thing was taken up at once to heaven. " Acts 10:9-16

Less ambiguously--