Objective truth/Truth deals with relationships
-
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
-
Peace be upon you Someone,
1 + 1 = 10 is truth in a binary system, where 2 is codified as 10.
It is only because of our programming that we count in the decimal system (10 based system), and also because we have 10 fingers.
Correct, according to the system(relationship) we find truth.
I will continue with this discussion after getting clearer understanding in regards to abstract relatives. Numbers are talked about in detail in another book which I dont have with me right now and can resolve these issues.
-
Peace brother Kyle,
First, let me thank you for the "resistance", this is how we get to Divine Law/Truth.
It is not as much resistance as it is trying to understand.
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.
I don't think that we invented or caused "flu". As for mad cow, it is a result of exceeding the limits in managing livestock. This is why it is important to transform things but stay within the limits.
Again, people can get all sorts of indigestion from eating some uncooked vegetables and fruits much less than they would get from cooked meat in reasonable amounts.
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.
Extending the same logic that you are proposing, one would say "if we were created to live in Philadelphia in the winter then we would be provisioned with a thick fur to deal with it."
As for evidence against meat, I don't see vegetarian Hindus having a longer life span on average than Japanese meat eaters or even Americans. On the other hand, obesity seems to be a big factor in reducing lifespan. So moderation is they key.
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.
There is nothing wrong with that. I am just pointing out the shortcoming of looking at certain superficial relationships such as "claws/fangs - meat eaters" to seek "truth".
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).
Yes we need to "ease the way" while not exceeding the limits.
Agreed, although there was a thread on here where someone wanted to open a raw meat restaurant, not sure where that is now.
I hope he has enough liability insurance.
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.
But it is "statistics" that tell us that there is no significant difference in life expectancy between vegetarian communities and meat-eating communities. The Japanese who eat all sorts of meats from Saki-drinking cows have a higher life expectancy than mostly vegetarian hindus. Also, children who don't eat meat are more likely to have iron deficiency and this can lead to other issues.
(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..."
But there is nothing in the great reading indicating that meat is not pure for the intent of consumption (except for pig's meat). We hear in 5522 allegorical descriptions of heaven talking of providng fruits and meat that people crave. So craving such things is in human nature.
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.
It doesn't.
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.
I agree and that is why we should only accept the parts that are true from any philosophy not everything.
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.
I don't think that there is inferior or superior as relating to lifespan, which is the ultimate measure of health. On the other hand, you will find a correlation with moderation in general and lifespan. So the key is to be within the limits.
I am sure that some completely vegetarian candy bars are much worse than any piece of steak.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace be upon yhou Ayman,
It is not as much resistance as it is trying to understand.
I meant resistance in a positive way, not negative. As you probe to understand it helps me to solidify my position through trying to defend it or cause me to make corrections to my position, and one needs to have thier view questioned and criticised in order to do that.
I just wanted to clear that up, I will read the rest of your post and respond at a later time today.
-
Idol free, you said
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?
Here is the bias. And the main partof this bias is what is underlined. First you analyzed what human beings should eat based on our basically given capacities. Then when it is shown to you that our basic capacities allow us much more than what can be seen from a very limited and simple analysis of the fangs and claws of a few species you subtlely still imply without basis that we are going against our stomachs by eating animal flesh.
So you are showing that you think eating animal flesh is disagreeable despite analyzing the logic of nature and despite the Quran, because as Ayman put it there are allegories in the Quran that imply that flesh is good and can be eaten by human beings, according to God's natural order. Are you against drinking milk also? The Quran refers to rivers of milk and honey as good. Are you okay with the honey but not with the milk? Are you accepting part of the book and not the whole book?
I still do sometimes eat raw meat, as many cultures do. I actually enjoy it and have never had any problems. As for the restaurant idea there are states that state that however the customer wants the food product you have to give it to them. Warning labels and such on waiting areas or menus can cover any other possible legal issues. People coming to eat raw foods know what to expect. Ethiopian restaurants serve their raw meat dishes all the time, no problem, no hassles, no lawsuits.
There is another theory of disease out there if your ever willing to check it out. You can see it through analyzing those sites that I gave you. The main basis behind this theory is "Disease is cause by poisoning or mal-nutrition only. Bacterias, yeasts, fungi and other microbes only feed on dead and damaged tissue and assist the body in cleansing itself through eating this tissue. The wastes that they leave then prompt the body to eliminate." This system however, is founded upon constant and pure, high-quality raw nutrition as well as an unpolluted envirnoment. Without such nutrition one will be subject to various cleansing processes going on in the body that deal with bacteria and parasites. Most of us are subject to those processes anyway to varying degrees. The constant chemical poisoining that we suffer from in modern societies from pollution, to home cleaning products, to medicines, to vaccines undermine the successfulness of this true system to maintain homeostasis.
The alternative approach is the one that has worked so well for modern medicine. If you sterylize the environment and halt the synergy that goes on between the body and the microbes in it, which work to clean out the body from poisons (most times in an uncomfortable way) then you halt the symptoms and seemingly "heal" the patient. At the least you alleviate his symptoms.
A highly nutritious, natural and least processed cooked diet, that includes raw foods and fermented foods can also mock the all raw diet system in a natural environment because the toxins created by cooked are not too drastic that they can't be dealt with by an omnivores' system, but the diet must have raw foods (especially some key animal foods), heavily emphasized in it. Polluition from medicine and the environment also undermine the effectiveness of this system to maintain homeostasis.
You didn't exactly answer this statement of mine
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.
You jumped straight at the coconut issue. In the coconut issue you admitted that tools are essential, but I wanted to see a reaction to this comment since it followed your initial logic of basic "natural capacity."In the end what basis do you have to think that eating meat is wrong, harmful or disturbing to our stomachs? I know you arguments when it come to raw, but the same arguments can be argued for raw fruits and vegetables. Raw meat, can be free of all the harmful bacteria and parasites that "cause" diseases, through careful raising and testing. Just like fruits can be full of harmful microbes that can "make" people sick hepatitis, fungus, molds, other bacterias, etc.
Ethiopians, the brothers of Egypt and that whole region, including the Nubians ate raw meat often. The Ethiopians have national dishes of Raw meat and the Sudanese eat Raw liver soaked in a peanut sauce. The somalians eat raw meat as well, and all of them have drunk raw milk for millenia. There is a story in greek literature that has two ethiopians (which could have even been in Egypt as Ethiop just means burnt-face) wrestling down a cow, Cutting a piece of its leg out, patching the cow up and then letting it go and sharing the fresh meat.
Believe me the idea of nature, what is natural, vegetarianism as a natural way, etc. is a very Indo-Aryan, European concept. It is not one that is very African and because of that I know that it is not very Egyptian either. Hindus (whose religion is called such because it comes from the hindis are mainly derived from the northern, Aryan tribes, close to russia. The "Pagans" or "heathens" from the European perspective like the Aborigines, the Native Americans and African peoples, as well as the South East Asian peoples are more in line with Natural Princples, diet wise, than the Hindus or the Europeans. Jamaican Rastafaris are a product of being heavily influenced by this European thought, despite their Anti-European sentiments they are a recent phenomenon born out of an environment where African ideas and European ideas had been mixing for centuries. The mixing is most times never equal and often sides with conqueror or the powerful of the times. Cubans, depsite how "white" they might look and really be are heavily influenced (more so than black jamaicans and black Americans) by the African cultures and their religions that were brought to the Americas. You would never find them turning away from eating meat, as their traditions emphasize the life importance of blood and animals.
Do you not want to eat meat because you think the animal suffers when you kill it? Those are the people who fear death and who believe in caste-system as to the inherit worth of God's beings (humans and animals(higher beings) and then the plant world(lower beings)). Do you not want to eat animals because you think they are unclean? Those are the people who think that biological life is essential disgusting (even their own bodily processes and functions). They think "the flesh" is dirty, lowly and not spiritual. Do you not want to eat meat because you think it is unnatural for humans? Those are the people who most times haven't analyzed nature enough. They look at the natural world as 'appropriate, 1 to 1 relationships, i.e. this is for that, and that is for this'
But nature is never that simple and defies these one to one relationships. The same people who say milk isn't a natural food for humans are these people. They look at a cow and its baby and then say a cow doesn't drink milk as an adult, so why should we? A cow doesn't drink milk as an adult because no mother cow can adequately feed another grown cow or bull. The mother pushes the calf away when it is big enough to manifest this natural fact that she can't produce that much milk, and she also has to recuperate to be able to have another calf and feed that calf.
In the natural world, every creature is out for its own survival. No carrot wants to be eaten, that defeats the purpose of is growth. But God allows us through knowledge and wisdom and his grace to be able to capatilize on the weaknesses (as this is a natural principle of life) of other creatures to be able to survive ourselves. That is God's rule (deen) with nature. This is the rule (deen) of survival.
The principle of milking a cow is genius. Milk provides a lot of nutrients that allow a baby to grow. A cow, buffalo, camel, donkey, horse, goat, sheep can provide more milk than any woman can and can feed more people. Raw milk is chock full of vital, live nutrients, especially when the animal is getting good quality natural food (in most cases for these animals this means fresh green grasses or even fermented green grasses). Not tons of corn.
When you pasteurize the milk you cut down on the nutrition and in some nutrionists minds create toxins in such a specialized food. Plus, you don't have to kill the cow, so its more economical. Well I going to stop here but let me re-emphasize some of the questions I asked you and would like for you to answer.Do you not want to eat meat because you think the animal suffers when you kill it? Do you not want to eat animals because you think they are unclean? Do you not want to eat meat because you think it is unnatural for humans? What basis do you have to think that eating meat is wrong, harmful or disturbing to our stomachs?
Godbless,
AnwarCheck out http//www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/index.html