Objective truth/Truth deals with relationships
-
Kyle No, thats a fact, a truth would be what is the relationship between the green table and 4 chairs that came with the table
Would you mind showing me how the relationship between the green table and 4 chair is a truth please?
I guess you need the chairs to sit around the table, well, how about the table is the mother of 4 young chairs?, would that make any sense to anyone?, i'm really cool with it, but we may need a DNA test to prove it scietifically though, the question will stay though, who is the father of the 4 young chairs?
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
You verify just what the article I shared stated, that Man is totally confused on a simple subject
Peace bro
I promised you that I will not discuss any subject with you due to a possible biasim, but I can't let this go, sorry
i can see that you are calling someone "CONFUSED" would that be contradicting your religion of peace concept or would it be contraidcting the forum rules or both?, if it is not contradicting the forum rules then yahoo, i can call others confused
please calrify
My many thanks to you
and Peace be with you
-
-
Peace be upon you Ahmed,
would that be contradicting your religion of peace concept
Your "religion" I take it is not centered around Peace?
Elena has given you the right context in regards to my response, so you can now continue your "response fast" with me and continue to refrain from being rude to others )
-
Peace be upon you respected brother Ayman,
First, let me thank you for the "resistance", this is how we get to Divine Law/Truth.
Ayman
That has nothing to do with the purpose. Some fruits are not even edible. This is why we sometimes hear of ornamental fruits. I am sure that you would have a hard time digesting many edible fruits and veggies. Try to chew on raw corn, raw eggplant or raw pumpkin and you will have a very hard time chewing and if you eat a good size serving you will probably get indigestion. This is why we need to use our knowledge to judge and differentiate between food items and how to or not to process it.Then we use the same criteria of interconectedness, form and funtion to discern what is right for us. Poison Ivy is a plant, but we certainly do not want to eat it. It is not being said that we take a group, such as fruits, as a whole, everything is questioned and verified. But lets go back to meat, even when cooked and seasoned to a point where we can consume it, it still has toxins and all kinds or problems such a bird flu and mad cow, etc. Further, it does not digest as it should. many people end up getting colon cleansing to help remove it. Yes, certainly mankind is to find ways to improve things, to ease the way, that would fall under the catergory of SEBEK within Kemetic Philosophy.
This is not just the case for food and drink but it is also the case for other necessities such as clothing. You have to process the skin or the hair from the animal and the fibers from plants to make them suitable for clothing.
Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see where the idea that progression is wrong is coming from. The point was only made that if we were created to eat meat, there would be provisions like the proper stoach acids to deal with it. Cooked or not cooked, the human stomach fails in regards to that. But if that is all one has to eat, by all means eat it, just as we see the statement about pigs meat, but the surrounding evidence speaks against it, even with the human using its talents to make it chewable.
So although the idea of the small part of the Kemitic philosophy that you presented may sound appealing as a "going back to nature" movement, it is actually going against human nature.
I hope the above explanation clarifies that its not a hippie movement, just one of "wakefulness" to the laws that govern all things around us.
This is because it is our nature to process things and to try to transform something bad into something good (unfortunately we sometimes do the opposite too). If you apply the same logic accross the board then we wouldn't process anything or transform anything and we would be still living in the trees.
Yes, it is definately our nature to "ease the way", which as you rightly stated we do to our own detriment sometimes (factor pollution, disease from animal toxins, etc).
idolfree1
Also, please show the interconnecting reasons why domesticated animals should remain wild, in the same way that it was shown that raw meat is not for the human. This discussion is not aligned properly.I think that the discussion is not aligned properly because from the above you think that I am talking about raw meat. As far as raw meat, everyone agrees that we shouldn't eat it, so there is no issue there.
Agreed, although there was a thread on here where someone wanted to open a raw meat restaurant, not sure where that is now.
On the other hand, as far as I can tell, your philosophy was advocating not eating properly cooked meat. What I was comparing are two processes. The process of transforming wild animals into domesticated ones for our benefit and the process of transforming their raw meat to cooked meat for our benefit. In both cases we used our God-given mind and imagination to transform natural forms into forms that can produce some more benefits for us. This ability makes humans unique on this planet so it must be related to our purpose.
Yes, I agree with "easing the way", and so does Khamitic Philosophy, but if we take the conversation to cooked meat, we have to look at the statistics of meat eaters vs vegetarians. While I will not say meat eating is forbidden, the wisest, most pure(azka) choice.
(1819) ...so let us send one of us with this money to the city. Let him fetch the (AZKA-pure, most nutritious) food, and buy some for us..."
Now we are told in the great reading that those processes make us aware of The God. Those very same processes according to the philosophy that you presented are presented as conter-productive. So there is a disconnect between your philosophy and the great reading as well as what we can observe about human purpose.
I hope the above will clarify this misconception.
IF1
The portion I am discussing on this thread is only about Divine Law, which is one of 11 parts of the Spirit according to that philosophy. And even with that , the law of MAAT deals much deeper that what we have discussed thus far, but my intention is no to teach Kamitic philosophy, I am just using it to shed light on our discussion here regarding "truth". This is by no means extensive discussion of Khamitic PhilosophyI am sure that there are some very good portions to Kemetic philosophy. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. This is especially the case because as you said we are discussing "truth". The one example that you brought was concerned with superficial physical relationships (fangs - meat eater). I don't think that this is the right approach when it comes to looking for deeper truths.
Again, there is no contradiction here, just that my statement was classified without a full understanding that this is only a small part. Although I like to address where some of my info comes from, its not about Khamitic vs "Koranic", all truth is God's "quran", and thats al I am interested in.
So in conclusion, if someone can provide stats indicating that a vegetarian diet is inferior to an animal diet, then the point being brought forth would be invalid, until that is done it remains valid. That covers both raw and cooked meats. The signs in the universe are clear and the God shows them to us until we KNOW this is the truth.
-
peace
i can see that you are calling someone "CONFUSED"
my reading of idolfree's sentence Man (with capital M letter) = men in general, humans, not one specific person.
It's referring to so many and so different attempts to define truth in that article.thank you, really a clever way out
cheers
-
Peace upon you idolfree1, all
How would you classify these items, truth or fact
-
The law of causality.
-
The earth orbits around the sun.
-
Everyone will die some day.
-
My name is Mohamed.
-
The sun helps plants to grow.
-
I have not understood what you are talking about. ???
-
2 + 3 = 5
-
1 + 1 = 10
Sorry for the quiz, I hope that it would help me understand your point. confused
--
-
-
;D Someone good quiz.
D
so you like someone's quiz?
well here is another quiz for ya
if you visit a country for the first time and you hire a car then use the street directory to take you from point A to point B, how the hell you verify that before following that street directory blindly?
i hope someone comes with a logical answer here or just don't watse my time
cheers
-
I was with you until you started inventing things (I always start off in this tone with you I don't know why I know I could be a bit more polite). I believe in all that you said about the relationship between relative truth and factual truth and relational truth. We use one word to express all these things and we cause confusion when we talk about the truth, because this word can have different shades of the meaning that just mean 'what is correct according to the given circumstance.'
Now when it comes to the true diet of the human being I believe you are mistaken. For a start check out these two sites http//home.earthlink.net/~welive/index.html as well as http//www.rawpaleodiet.org/rvaf-overview.html
As it concerns the truth of the human's anatomy and its purpose I believe you are mistaken. Because our basic anatomy also would not allow us to build buildings, machines, cities, weapons etc. We don't have lasers coming out of our eyes and we dont spit bullets either but that does not mean that it is not in our "true" nature to make these things.
I say all that because mankind in his basic capacity is an omnivore, he makes tools and he hunts in collectives. He has the strength to catch and eat small animals(lizards, rabbits, rats, moles, mice, etc.(never without a risk as with any predator)) and insects (roaches, grubs, larvae and many other insects) as well as fruits and such. This is in his basic capacity. But the brain of humans (and even apes) which orients them towards using tools enhances that ability. We may not have claws but we have hands to pick up rocks and sticks, something that no other animals besides primates have. It is one of those relationship truths that the hands are multi-tasking tools.
It is because of our hands, and mouths and commication oriented brains mainly that we have been able to accomplish what other animals cannot. A lion cannot take out an elephant but he sure would like to. With his basic tools he will fail, because his claws only allow him to catch smaller animals(he can't rough it with a big boy like that). But give him hands and a clever brain and he can do it now, the limitations of animals are related to their tools, but you have not taken into account the true use of the hands.
We have not needed really strong hides because of our tools. As far as eating food raw. I ate a raw food diet for over a year, that included raw meat, fish etc. Many others do it as well. You actually do build a taste up for raw meat, but our eating habits now are not based on instinct but they are based on habit. That is to say all of our tastes are built up tastes. Most modern people will look at a carrot the same way they look at a piece of meat, bland and tasteless. I like my raw meat fresh and still juicy and I dont' shudder at the site of blood because that is a cultural learned habit. Have you ever seen the lions eating meat on the discovery channel. That meat is not tender no matter how long your fangs are.
Kids put anything in their mouth to learn what to eat, they don't start off attracted to anything. You can put blood or milk in a babies mouth and they will drink it the same. The Masai drink blood mixed with milk (and its not made to taste like any vegetable). When they're hungry and they see blood I'm sure they crave it. Selected cravings are a learned behaviour.
As far as the shape of teeth, believe me I appreciate what your saying because I have gone through the same thought process, but your analysis is very basic. i'm sure you are pretty influenced by the Ausar Auset groups mindset there in philly, but believe me that vegetarianism mindset comes from a modern disgust for animal life and the fear of death and suffering and is not based on true understanding. Your hands can pick up a cockroach or a cricket, or a beetle but I'm sure you shudder at the thought and think of eating a bug as an abberation. On the same hand you probably have no problem eating coconuts, but have you ever seen a coconut straight from the tree? Good luck trying to eat coconut with your bare hands, and without tools.
I've seen vegetarian monkeys with huge long fangs. You see I believe in evolution but you also have to consider the destiny of humanity. A bear or a dog might be an omnivore just like us, and you might say they can eat meat because they have long fangs and claws. But those long fangs and claws serve as weopons just as much as utensils, and they serve more as weapons then actual utensils. It also puts these animals on equal footing pretty much if they are about the same size. But the hand and a highly advanced problem solving brain can do much more damage then those fangs and claws. Secondly our teeth aren't like cows or other vegetarians animals either so we were not meant to eat all vegetation, and we don't have 2 stomachs. I also did a vegan diet and without juicers that eliminate indigestible pulp that locks up nutrients you might as just well ask for malnutrition. Even with juicing I was as skinny as a toothpick.
Our teeth are rigded (not flat) and we have small fangs. But we don't need huge fangs and claws because we have hands. Also put a human being naked out in the elements for a while and you'll be suprised about the hide that he'll grow. Wearing clothes and not having to bear out the elements with little "coverage" makes for soft skin.
Look at kids knees when they play outside all the time, imagine that for your whole body. The limbs that you have expose now when rubbed up against enough toughen up tremendously. House dogs' skin is not too tough at all.
Well, that's it. I hope you didn't find my comment offensive. have a good day.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace be upon you Someone,
How would you classify these items, truth or fact
- The law of causality.
This deals with relationship, so truth
- The earth orbits around the sun.
Relationship, truth
- Everyone will die some day.
Fact
- My name is Mohamed.
Fact
- The sun helps plants to grow.
Truth
- I have not understood what you are talking about.
Fact
-
2 + 3 = 5
-
1 + 1 = 10
I don't think those equations are correct but if they were than it would be truth.
Sorry for the quiz, I hope that it would help me understand your point.
No problem. I am still learning this myself, so I might make a mistake as well, but I will try to get more info as we go along.
-
Peace be upon you Anwar,
I was with you until you started inventing things (I always start off in this tone with you I don't know why I know I could be a bit more polite). I believe in all that you said about the relationship between relative truth and factual truth and relational truth. We use one word to express all these things and we cause confusion when we talk about the truth, because this word can have different shades of the meaning that just mean 'what is correct according to the given circumstance.'
Agreed
Now when it comes to the true diet of the human being I believe you are mistaken. For a start check out these two sites http//home.earthlink.net/~welive/index.html as well as http//www.rawpaleodiet.org/rvaf-overview.html
I will check them out shortly
As it concerns the truth of the human's anatomy and its purpose I believe you are mistaken.
Believe or KNOW, that is the question )
Because our basic anatomy also would not allow us to build buildings, machines, cities, weapons etc. We don't have lasers coming out of our eyes and we dont spit bullets either but that does not mean that it is not in our "true" nature to make these things.
It seems we are running into the same territory as my debate with Ayman. There is nothing in what I said that rejects "easing the way" in life.
I say all that because mankind in his basic capacity is an omnivore, he makes tools and he hunts in collectives. He has the strength to catch and eat small animals(lizards, rabbits, rats, moles, mice, etc.(never without a risk as with any predator)) and insects (roaches, grubs, larvae and many other insects) as well as fruits and such. This is in his basic capacity. But the brain of humans (and even apes) which orients them towards using tools enhances that ability. We may not have claws but we have hands to pick up rocks and sticks, something that no other animals besides primates have. It is one of those relationship truths that the hands are multi-tasking tools.
It is because of our hands, and mouths and commication oriented brains mainly that we have been able to accomplish what other animals cannot. A lion cannot take out an elephant but he sure would like to. With his basic tools he will fail, because his claws only allow him to catch smaller animals(he can't rough it with a big boy like that). But give him hands and a clever brain and he can do it now, the limitations of animals are related to their tools, but you have not taken into account the true use of the hands.
Yes, the human is the creation that allows the fullest expression of the God, so we certainly can create, but just because we have learned how to cook meat, it does not make it correct, it does not make meat eating the TRUTHFUL food for mankind. Just as the ability to use tools allows man to do good or to create nuclear weapons and factories that pollute mankind. The PROPER relationship is one that does not cause further problems elsewhere.
We have not needed really strong hides because of our tools. As far as eating food raw. I ate a raw food diet for over a year, that included raw meat, fish etc. Many others do it as well. You actually do build a taste up for raw meat, but our eating habits now are not based on instinct but they are based on habit.
I agree that likes and dislikes are up to our own programming, but meat eating, much less raw meat, has much evidence to support it is not healthy. Do you still eat raw meat diet?
That is to say all of our tastes are built up tastes. Most modern people will look at a carrot the same way they look at a piece of meat, bland and tasteless. I like my raw meat fresh and still juicy and I dont' shudder at the site of blood because that is a cultural learned habit. Have you ever seen the lions eating meat on the discovery channel. That meat is not tender no matter how long your fangs are.
Kids put anything in their mouth to learn what to eat, they don't start off attracted to anything. You can put blood or milk in a babies mouth and they will drink it the same. The Masai drink blood mixed with milk (and its not made to taste like any vegetable). When they're hungry and they see blood I'm sure they crave it. Selected cravings are a learned behaviour.
Yes. likes and dislikes are up to our programming.
As far as the shape of teeth, believe me I appreciate what your saying because I have gone through the same thought process, but your analysis is very basic. i'm sure you are pretty influenced by the Ausar Auset groups mindset there in philly, but believe me that vegetarianism mindset comes from a modern disgust for animal life and the fear of death and suffering and is not based on true understanding.
Disgust for animal life? Fear of death? I have never heard such a thing and its certainly not my reasoning for pursuing this path. ) I wonder if teh other vegetarians here have the same haterd and fears?
Your hands can pick up a cockroach or a cricket, or a beetle but I'm sure you shudder at the thought and think of eating a bug as an abberation. On the same hand you probably have no problem eating coconuts, but have you ever seen a coconut straight from the tree? Good luck trying to eat coconut with your bare hands, and without tools.
Yes, the tool has allowed us to mimic the animal claws/fangs to reach nutricious foods, so why would we need to go against our own stomach and eat animal fleash unless we had to? Making life more efficient does not mean that we disturb natural order of life, thats why there is more pollution and so many other problems as man "progresses" materially.
I've seen vegetarian monkeys with huge long fangs. You see I believe in evolution but you also have to consider the destiny of humanity. A bear or a dog might be an omnivore just like us, and you might say they can eat meat because they have long fangs and claws. But those long fangs and claws serve as weopons just as much as utensils, and they serve more as weapons then actual utensils. It also puts these animals on equal footing pretty much if they are about the same size. But the hand and a highly advanced problem solving brain can do much more damage then those fangs and claws. Secondly our teeth aren't like cows or other vegetarians animals either so we were not meant to eat all vegetation, and we don't have 2 stomachs. I also did a vegan diet and without juicers that eliminate indigestible pulp that locks up nutrients you might as just well ask for malnutrition. Even with juicing I was as skinny as a toothpick.
Our teeth are rigded (not flat) and we have small fangs. But we don't need huge fangs and claws because we have hands. Also put a human being naked out in the elements for a while and you'll be suprised about the hide that he'll grow. Wearing clothes and not having to bear out the elements with little "coverage" makes for soft skin.
Look at kids knees when they play outside all the time, imagine that for your whole body. The limbs that you have expose now when rubbed up against enough toughen up tremendously. House dogs' skin is not too tough at all.
Well, that's it. I hope you didn't find my comment offensive. have a good day.
Nothing offensive at all. In fact very good responses, some that I have no answer for because I have not studied each species in depth, but the point remains that the statistics speak for themselves in regards to a vegetarian diet. Our stomachs do not lend to digestion of meat.
Lastly, for those that disagree, what is the basis of your verification of diet for mankind?
-
Peace be upon you,
u perhaps misunderstood, it is not -2 + 3 = 5...it is 2+3 = 5 which is correct! -)
Yes, it was me, I included the (-) as part of the equeation
2 + 3 = 5
Truth
1 + 1 = 10
Neither truth nor fact.
-
Peace be upon you,
actually
1 + 1 = 10 would need to be addressed more specifically
One could say that 1 (5-pack) of apples + 1 (5-pack) of apples = 10 apples
Numbers are abstract themselves.
But just used as basic math, my last post stands.
-
idolfree1 wrote
Yes, it was me, I included the (-) as part of the equeationcool! -)
idolfree1 wrote
1 + 1 = 10 would need to be addressed more specificallyOne could say that 1 (5-pack) of apples + 1 (5-pack) of apples = 10 apples
Numbers are abstract themselves.
how about 5 apples + 5 oranges = 10 fruits?
idolfree1 wrote
But just used as basic math, my last post stands.yes...did look like basic maths! -)
peace