# Any Vegetarians/Vegans out there?



## LeeJUk

So I've been considering lately becoming a vegetarian and I'm thinking of making the leap considering it's the new year and all that.
If being vegetarian goes well then maybe ill take it further to being vegan.

So I was wondering if theres any pb'ers who are one of the above and if so I'd like your advice.

Regards

Lee


----------



## Ivan

LeeJUk said:


> So I've been considering lately becoming a vegetarian and I'm thinking of making the leap considering it's the new year and all that.
> If being vegetarian goes well then maybe ill take it further to being vegan.
> 
> So I was wondering if theres any pb'ers who are one of the above and if so I'd like your advice.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Lee


 
Hmmm...I don't know of any, but I'd be interested in hearing how your experience progresses.


----------



## Curt

Where's the beef?


----------



## Berean

Where's Josh when we need him? "I'm sure that someone somewhere out there is a vegetarian/vegan."


----------



## Skyler

I never understood why someone would want to be a vegetarian in the first place.


----------



## Skyler

That's not to be discouraging. I just don't understand the way they think.


----------



## Ivan

Skyler said:


> That's not to be discouraging. I just don't understand the way they think.



I don't think we should be discouraging at all. It's a choice and an interesting one at that.


----------



## a mere housewife

LeeJUk said:


> So I've been considering lately becoming a vegetarian and I'm thinking of making the leap considering it's the new year and all that.
> If being vegetarian goes well then maybe ill take it further to being vegan.
> 
> So I was wondering if theres any pb'ers who are one of the above and if so I'd like your advice.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Lee


 
You have to be very careful cutting out meat -- I have had to be a vegetarian several times throughout my life (when I was little we lived on cornmeal mush and meatless spaghetti for some time, as undersupported missionaries, and several times throughout my life I have done without meat for extended periods of time for economic reasons or health conditions) -- and it can have a very negative impact on you physically not to be getting the nutrition that you get from meat. You would need to research and make sure that you are supplementing or getting everything from other foods somehow. All kinds of claims are made for the healthfulness of the vegan lifestyle, but I've never seen the results personally, and must be very careful to eat meat now for basic things like healthy cholesterol levels (there is such a thing as 'dangerously low' cholesterol) etc. I would strongly dis-advise (if that is a word) cutting out meat 'cold turkey' without doing some research and making sure you know what you are doing nutritionally.


----------



## Michael

LeeJUk said:


> So I've been considering lately becoming a vegetarian and I'm thinking of making the leap considering it's the new year and all that.
> If being vegetarian goes well then maybe ill take it further to being vegan.
> 
> So I was wondering if theres any pb'ers who are one of the above and if so I'd like your advice.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Lee


I was raised vegetarian, Lee. It's definitely not for most people and if you go forward with it you should prepare yourself for being in some compromising situations. Your choices are going to go way down whenever you are out and about. It certainly helps if you enjoy cooking because you can take care of a good deal at home. One of the main things, of course, is making sure that you get your protein. This becomes even more difficult if you go as far as vegan--since you won't have the aid of cheese. Do your homework and see what you think.

I don't want to sound entirely negative about it though. There are a lot of benefits to a vegetarian diet. If we are being honest with ourselves here, the human body was originally made for it. If you eat well, you will likely have great bowels  and have a little extra pep in your step too. Plus, after a year of no meat I think you get something like a pair of Birkenstocks in the mail.


----------



## TimV

> There are a lot of benefits to a vegetarian diet. If we are being honest with ourselves here, the human body was originally made for it.



So was a lion's, but that would kill one now.


----------



## Andres

are you sure you don't want to change your mind?


----------



## LawrenceU

I have known several vegetarians in my life. They have all be intelligent, careful with their diet, making sure to get the proper proteins, lipids, and all of that, and they have all had serious, really serious health issues related to their lack of animal proteins in their diet. I know this is anecdotal evidence. I also recently read a study that showed that the lack of animal protein in the human diet can have serious effect upon reasoning skills. But, what about Scripture? God changed things after the fall and the flood. Please don't forget that in making a choice that can have serious implications upon your health.


----------



## CredoFidoSpero

Nope, I like to use my canines (and thanks, Andrew, now I'm really hungry).

I have no problem with people who make that choice, I'm just not going to do it. 

I think a lot problems people have from a vegetarian diet is more from lack of fat than protein. There's a lot of good stuff recently on how much we need healthy fats - it's the trans or polyunsaturated stuff that's killing us, that and the insane amount of sugar/simple carbs in the American diet. Lots of nuts, avacado, healthy oils like olive oil, coconut oil, or almond oil, will also probably help a lot with the transition to a vegetarian/vegan diet. And I think you should read up a little about soy before loading up on the tofu. Personally, I'd rather stick with meat and give up grains and sugars.

This is a book that came out in 2009, written by someone who was a vegan for 20 years. I haven't read it yet, but the reveiws were interesting:

Amazon.com: The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability (9781604860801): Lierre Keith: Books


----------



## a mere housewife

TimV said:


> There are a lot of benefits to a vegetarian diet. If we are being honest with ourselves here, the human body was originally made for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So was a lion's, but that would kill one now.
Click to expand...

 
I've often wondered about Christ eating fish in His glorified body, and what that means about animal death etc. in the new creation, but that is probably a different thread.


----------



## TimV

I don't think it's a different thread, Heidi. Look at how many sacrifices were ordered by God to be meat and to be eaten. Not just Passover. Veganism is really another religion rather than a reasonable choice of diet.


----------



## PointingToChrist

What are your reasons for this desire?


----------



## Pergamum

All vegeterian diets are not vegetarian*ISM* or vegan*ISM*. This doesn't need to be an ISM at all - but a health choice.

Many Americans are sloppy fat. A vegetarian diet is often asociated with lower BP and weight loss. Cutting out the excess of red meat might just be more in line with Christian stewardship.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Lee,

If this is for reasons of being a good steward of the body that God gave you, that's wonderful! 

The American diet (and from what I've seen, though correct me if I'm wrong, the UK diet as well) consists of WAY too much meat. We should be a lot closer to the Mediterranean diet in this respect; that is, we only may need meat 1-2 times a week or less, or somewhere in that range, perhaps substitute a lot of the meat for eggs, and certainly eat MUCH less red meat. On top of that, if you do even a small amount of research about the way meat is processed, no matter what type, you will find that the way livestock is being fed, killed, packaged, whatever is disgusting and has very negative effects on our bodies. Really, we should only be consuming organic meat, and in an ideal world the government would not be subsidizing the disgusting food, therefore making organic food more affordable (that's the situation in the US anyway; I don't know about the UK). 

However, even though the meat most of us consume is disgusting and damaging, and we consume far too much of it, our bodies DO need it - in smaller portions, on less occasions and only the kind that doesn't harm our bodies and in fact nourishes them. 

To put it simply, the kind of veganism that most vegans espouse is harmful to your body. The dairy substitutes are fake food. They are just bags of chemicals that virtually only damage your body. DO NOT eat them.

The best "diet" (or eating lifestyle is a better term) I've heard of is the Rosedale or Krohn's (sp?) diet. Forget that it has a name though, unless you want to read about it, and just remember the general idea of it. Here's the premise of this lifestyle: nutrient-dense. Eat as many food as you possibly can that have the highest amount of nutrients, and eat a variety of them so that you can encompass as many nutrients as possible. Throw away all caloric-dense (high calorie), nutrient-deficient foods. Why? Because what's the point of eating them because they don't give you nutrients, which is what your body needs, and only harm your body? 

What does this lifestyle end up looking like then? No processed food, only natural, whole, organic when possible foods. Mostly vegetables (raw vegetables, and then cooked), then fruits, then occasionally meats, less occasionally dairy and virtually no grain (when you eat it make sure it's whole grain). That's in order from nutrient rich food to nutrient deficient food, to the best of my knowledge. 

Obviously, God created some food that happens to be terrible for you that we can enjoy like candy and cake and stuff, but only sparingly and with thanks. Personally, I don't think making a lifestyle out of eating damaging foods on a regular basis is what God wants. I've had to repent of it many a time... actually, quite often. But, that might be legalistic of me, so I beg someone to correct me lovingly if I'm wrong.

That may be more than you wanted to know. My advice: Don't do either, but do it almost. Eat mostly vegetables, try to make a lot of them raw, and then meat a few times a week, dairy not so much and grains try to avoid as much as possible (which is really hard, I know, and I haven't quite figured out how to make a lifestyle of it yet. Right now I just make sure I eat whole grains but only a few times a week).


----------



## Pergamum

Amazon.com: In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto (9780143114963): Michael Pollan: Books

This is an interesting read that advocates reducing/eliminating all processed foods from your diet. Not necessarily advocating vegeterianism, but promoting whole/organic foods, and greater amount of leaves rather than meats and grains.


----------



## Kevin

I am a vegetarian. Just not a very strict one, i eat fish, chicken. beef, and a small amount of lamb. Plus a bit of wild game (depends on what is in season & how good I shoot).


----------



## Notthemama1984

I went vegetarian for a while and loved it. It was rough at first, but well worth it. My reason at first was that I quickly learned that military mystery meat was gross and all the good MRE's were vegetarian. Not the best reasons, but that is the reason. I tell people if I can go vegetarian while in Basic Training, anyone can. 

I lost alot of weight (but who doesn't in Basic),and my mental capacity was still fine (I graduated Warrior of the Cycle, Student Platoon SGT, and Distinguished Honor Grad at AIT). One of the interesting side effects of being vegetarian was after a week or so my appetite basically disappeared. It wouldn't take much and I would feel stuffed. A typical meal for me at lunch time would be butter noodles, mashed potatoes with shredded cheese, lettuce, raisins, and mixed nuts. I might add an apple sometimes, but that was about it. 

I never really looked into any long term side effects or anything like that so I can't comment. I can only comment on my experience.

The only reason why I am not a vegetarian now is because I don't buy the groceries.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Chaplainintraining said:


> I went vegetarian for a while and loved it. It was rough at first, but well worth it. My reason at first was that I quickly learned that military mystery meat was gross and all the good MRE's were vegetarian. Not the best reasons, but that is the reason.


 
Those are excellent reasons. I probably would have done the same thing.


----------



## py3ak

I'd be quite suspicious of advice to avoid grains. After all, it seems that in many societies grain in some form, often turned into a species of bread, is basically the staff of life, the fundament of all meals. And many grains are quite high in nutritional value, like amaranth, not to mention the essential fiber content.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Megan,
Why the recommendation against grain, assuming we're talking whole grain? I agree with Ruben; the fiber is important, especially since I have a sensitivity to citrus and lose one way to get fiber there.


----------



## Montanablue

Lee, if you're looking into this for health reasons, you might consider eating fish rather than red meat and chicken. My roommate does this (and is also very careful about eating a balanced diet) and has not suffered any kind of malnutrition from giving up beef, pork, and chicken. If fish wasn't so expensive here, I would probably do the same. She's not really strict about it and does eat other types of meat when she's visiting others or as a treat, but in her day to day cooking, she has fish.


----------



## Megan Mozart

py3ak said:


> I'd be quite suspicious of advice to avoid grains. After all, it seems that in many societies grain in some form, often turned into a species of bread, is basically the staff of life, the fundament of all meals. And many grains are quite high in nutritional value, like amaranth, not to mention the essential fiber content.


 
The reason to avoid grains is mostly that they are processed and contain chemicals and stuff that gunk up our bodies and ruin them. Now if they are organic, then I can see what you're saying. But I am of the persuasion that we should eat mostly foods that are as highly nutrient dense as possible, (meaning mostly vegetables, and not very many grains because even though they do have some nutrients they don't have enough to warrant us eating them so much. They also raise your blood-glucose level a lot, and I've even heard that whole grain breads do that more than white breads!). So, so much easier said than done however, and I am just in the beginning stage of this.

The other stigma that "no grains" has is that it reminds people of the Atkins, which is a diet I do not recommend. The reason that diet is bad however is not because it's without grains, but because you eat a ton of meat and fool your body into thinking it's in ketosis mode, which is really really bad.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Scottish Lass said:


> Megan,the fiber is important, especially since I have a sensitivity to citrus and lose one way to get fiber there.


 
Get it from lots o' veggies, I would venture to recommend but I'm not a doctor and I don't know your situation. My husband knows this stuff better than I do too - it was his obsession before he became a Christian.


----------



## py3ak

Megan Mozart said:


> The reason to avoid grains is mostly that they are processed and contain chemicals and stuff that gunk up our bodies and ruin them. Now if they are organic, then I can see what you're saying. But I am of the persuasion that we should eat mostly foods that are as highly nutrient dense as possible, (meaning mostly vegetables, and not very many grains because even though they do have some nutrients they don't have enough to warrant us eating them so much. They also raise your blood-glucose level a lot, and I've even heard that whole grain breads do that more than white breads!). So, so much easier said than done however, and I am just in the beginning stage of this.
> 
> The other stigma that "no grains" has is that it reminds people of the Atkins, which is a diet I do not recommend. The reason that diet is bad however is not because it's without grains, but because you eat a ton of meat and fool your body into thinking it's in ketosis mode, which is really really bad.


 
I understand the feelings, Megan, but it is as well to be aware that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and there are a lot of food-related heresies. In some ways, in our society, it is obvious that we are as confused about food as we are about sex. But if you look first at the Bible, and then at history, you will see that grains have been an indispensable part of human existence. Famine is thought of as breaking the whole staff of bread (Psalm 105:16), and it is specifically bread (not arugula or avocados or almonds) which strengthens man's heart (Psalm 104:15). And while I am not a sheepish follower of conventional medicine, and don't like chemicals and processing methods which introduce foreign substances, if it is true that the average life expectancy is increasing, then it's obvious that questions of hygiene have a greater overall impact than the consumption of processed foods. I would be very leery of any health claims that are supported by reference to a past golden age of health: if there was one, it was before the flood, and that antediluvian world is quite inaccessible to us.


----------



## Megan Mozart

py3ak said:


> Megan Mozart said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason to avoid grains is mostly that they are processed and contain chemicals and stuff that gunk up our bodies and ruin them. Now if they are organic, then I can see what you're saying. But I am of the persuasion that we should eat mostly foods that are as highly nutrient dense as possible, (meaning mostly vegetables, and not very many grains because even though they do have some nutrients they don't have enough to warrant us eating them so much. They also raise your blood-glucose level a lot, and I've even heard that whole grain breads do that more than white breads!). So, so much easier said than done however, and I am just in the beginning stage of this.
> 
> The other stigma that "no grains" has is that it reminds people of the Atkins, which is a diet I do not recommend. The reason that diet is bad however is not because it's without grains, but because you eat a ton of meat and fool your body into thinking it's in ketosis mode, which is really really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the feelings, Megan, but it is as well to be aware that there is a lot of conflicting information out there, and there are a lot of food-related heresies. In some ways, in our society, it is obvious that we are as confused about food as we are about sex. But if you look first at the Bible, and then at history, you will see that grains have been an indispensable part of human existence. Famine is thought of as breaking the whole staff of bread (Psalm 105:16), and it is specifically bread (not arugula or avocados or almonds) which strengthens man's heart (Psalm 104:15). And while I am not a sheepish follower of conventional medicine, and don't like chemicals and processing methods which introduce foreign substances, if it is true that the average life expectancy is increasing, then it's obvious that questions of hygiene have a greater overall impact than the consumption of processed foods. I would be very leery of any health claims that are supported by reference to a past golden age of health: if there was one, it was before the flood, and that antediluvian world is quite inaccessible to us.
Click to expand...

 
I was just thinking about this more, about why throughout civilization has had grains as a staple.

Was it because they promote longevity and health? I don't think so.

I think this is why. 

1. they make you feel full
2. they're easy to grow and to store

I'll think more about the other things you said and maybe go back to some of my old references.


----------



## py3ak

I don't know that I accept the presupposition that you eat to promote longevity and health: the difference may be slight but I would see eating as being to sustain life and to enjoy your sense of taste. The quest for longevity and health easily turns into an idolatry (compare Holt Fasner in Donaldson's shattering _Gap_ sequence). So I should eat to have strength to perform my work (Ecclesiastes 10:17), rather than to grasp at an extended life upon this plane.


----------



## a mere housewife

> Obviously, God created some food that happens to be terrible for you that we can enjoy like candy and cake and stuff, but only sparingly and with thanks. Personally, I don't think making a lifestyle out of eating damaging foods on a regular basis is what God wants. I've had to repent of it many a time... actually, quite often. But, that might be legalistic of me, so I beg someone to correct me lovingly if I'm wrong.



Megan, I'm not sure what all you consider 'damaging foods', but I have personally had cause many times to remind myself that Christ did not come preaching salvation by a change of diet -- he seems to have eaten the common food of the time, and blessed it, and his comments about food were analogies drawn from the common foods, or the statement that the things that we put into our bodies are not what defile a man (and he was talking about basic hygiene, which as Ruben pointed out, seems to have at least as much impact on questions of health and longevity!). Obviously we should try to be good stewards of our bodies (and I'm definitely in favor of trying to get sensible nutrition to be able to do what God gives us to do as well as we are able), but common food seems to be quite good enough for such a purpose: there is a tremendous amount of guilt in many of the idolatrous food salvation schemes out there -- whether they claim to be Biblical or not -- in my experience.


----------



## LeeJUk

Thanks a lot for all your posts.

My reasons:

1) Health not only for me but if God ever calls me to start a family then I want to be a good example. 
2) The treatment of animals by the industry is appalling in the UK and USA.
3) The fact that food is not an end but a means. A means to empower our bodies but it seems today that a lot of our eating is instead disabling our bodies, depleting our energy and increasing the chances of death. So doesn't it make sense to instead put the best kind of fuel into our bodies? 

Especially thanks to you megan your posts were very informative. I don't think I want to eat meat substitutes and tofu etc... simply because I think I can live without the taste of meat. If I couldn't live without it then I'd probably just give up and rather eat the real thing.

I will keep you updated on this thread 

Regards

Lee


----------



## Theogenes

Not me! I love animals, they're delicious!


----------



## Andres

I hope this is not a hi-jacking the thread, but I agree with Heidi in that just as gluttony is a sin because it is extreme indulgence, the opposite end would be true too, extreme diet. In either case we make idols of our food. The extreme dieter is almost constantly thinking about what they eat and how food is prepared. 

Another example might be to consider the miser. Their sin is hording because it shows a lack of faith in God providing for their needs. In a similar vein, worrying about health to the point that one questions everything that goes into their body would constitute a lack of faith in God and His care for us. 



> 25"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? - Matt 6:25-27


----------



## au5t1n

a mere housewife said:


> I've often wondered about Christ eating fish in His glorified body, and what that means about animal death etc. in the new creation, but that is probably a different thread.



I have the same question about this verse: 



> Is. 25:6 And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.



I'll go ahead and start that thread, then.

Edit: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/animal-death-new-creation-57306/

As to being a vegetarian, I don't think it is sinful, but you'd better consider the very real health concerns and ask your doctor how you can get around those if you decide to opt for a vegetarian diet. You also need to realize the implications this will have for dining with others. I eat very little meat because I don't really like it much, and it has in the past caused problems with where I can go eat with people and how much I can accept their hospitality when visiting their homes. These days I pretty much just eat what I'm given, even if I don't like the meat being served. I couldn't give up shrimp, though - Yum!


----------



## Pergamum

Ruben: _In Defense of Food_ doesn't advocate avoiding (totally) meat or grains but in trying to cultivate the eating of more organic plants and vegetables. The "Western Diet" consumed in America is unbalanced.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> I don't know that I accept the presupposition that you eat to promote longevity and health: the difference may be slight but I would see eating as being to sustain life and to enjoy your sense of taste. The quest for longevity and health easily turns into an idolatry (compare Holt Fasner in Donaldson's shattering _Gap_ sequence). So I should eat to have strength to perform my work (Ecclesiastes 10:17), rather than to grasp at an extended life upon this plane.


 
Except for extremes, promoting health also increases happiness, and not over-gorging the senses also promotes a refinement of the tastes. Even lentils would taste good to an Esau if he was hungry enough. Stewardship of all that God gives also includes health, diet, exercise, etc.


----------



## Michael

Andrew, you are right and I know plenty of people who make food and/or diets an idol. Even worse would be to assume that refraining from meat is somehow holier or more spiritually edifying. 

Lee, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing a prudent vegetarian diet for the sake of health or taste. However, I'm not sure that you can establish this as [you put it] "the best kind of fuel" for your body. Meat does have its value in this regard (keep in mind too that I am speaking as a vegetarian myself). 

You do bring up something important though about the treatment of animals. It's not a topic that I spend a lot of time on, but it is a real problem that exposes a sad lack of stewardship. But even here I doubt I could find a reason to disavow all meat. Perhaps it would be better to only buy from more reputable sources. I don't want to downplay the seriousness of the matter, but I just don't see by any means as a sole reason for vegetarianism if alternatives exist.

This might sound a little confusing or like I am speaking out of both sides of my mouth here. If you are really interested in trying out vegetarianism and are prepared to handle your nutrition as well as some inconveniences, I think you may be pleasantly surprised at some of the benefits that come with it. But as others have warned, just try not to pursue it for the wrong reasons or without ample attention to your health. Otherwise, go for it!

p.s. Tofu, though often used as such, is not really a meat substitute in and of itself. It's a great source of protein that absorbs the flavor of whatever it is prepared with. If you like the consistency, there are plenty of creative dishes that can be enjoyed with it.


----------



## a mere housewife

Pergamum said:


> Ruben: _In Defense of Food_ doesn't advocate avoiding (totally) meat or grains but in trying to cultivate the eating of more organic plants and vegetables. The "Western Diet" consumed in America is unbalanced.


 
Pergy, I was wondering how that would reflect on biblical cultures as well -- five loaves and two fishes, manna and quail, etc? (and I read Psalm 81 the other day -- God would have fed them with the finest of the wheat) I'm very much in favor of treating land and animals, and the people who farm them, with fairness, and there is a lot of injustice in our current way of life. But leeks and garlics weren't the provision of God for His people in the wilderness -- He took them away from that? And a certain kind of diet never seems to be a big deal outside of the ceremonial significance of clean and unclean. (Of course, I think it's common sense to eat your vegetables  

Also I wanted to clarify re: idolatrous diets -- I hope I didn't come across as accusing anyone of idolatry (I'm sincerely sorry if I did). I have encountered a lot of thinking (and in the past I have come to think that I was defiling myself by eating a piece of bread, hence my reaction  along the lines of what follows in the quote below, from a cookbook written by one the first home-economics professors in the US, in a chapter rather notably entitled 'The Coming Cook'. The quote is in dead earnest, but it's almost a parody of claims inherent in statements made about many diets -- as if we could actually reverse the processes of decay in our bodies, effecting _moral_ change, until we usher in eschatological glory by means of what we put in our mouths. I think it's also common sense that good nutrition supports better mental and emotional function -- but God's way of salvation changes us from the inside out.



> 'Genuine civilization and good cooking are more closely related than is usually appreciated. Savages live on food either wholly or partially raw and have not the faintest conception of the routine of meals, variety of diet, and combination of flavors that are to us absolute necessities. They gorge themselves when food is plentiful, and starve when it is scarce. They eat the coarsest and the grossest substances without subjecting them to the refining effects of fire, or the transforming influence of condiments, herbs, or extracts. They know nothing of the subtle combinations by which the palate may be tickled and the digestive powers stimulated to easy and effective work.
> 'To their habits of eating may be ascribed, in great measure, their imperfect physical development, their mental dullness, and their moral obtuseness. Improve their diet and you have taken the first step towards a better life. Philanthropists and missionaries of all kinds are beginning to understand that no appeal can be effectually made to the higher nature until the stomach has first been revived, and that all reforms in the individual must proceed from this center to the head and heart.
> 'Coarse food, even though perfectly digested, produces coarse natures. . . . A sour stomach is apt to produce a sour temper. Melancholy, suspicion, envy, false and distorted views of men and things, follow dyspepsia as the shadow follows substance. . . .
> '. . . Comparative values are not sufficiently considered, even by those who urge most strenuously the advancement of the human race. Those who decry the claims of the body, and at the same time attempt to exalt the power of mental and spiritual growth, forget that the body is the medium through which the mind acts, and that one cannot be abused or depressed without very sensibly affecting the other. The only possible way to have a “sound mind” is first to secure a “sound body.”
> '. . . If the cook but knew what influence she might exert, and if the world valued her services properly, what a revolution would be wrought in human affairs.
> 'When a tired man can say to his cook: “I am weary — refresh me with that which will be easy to digest, which will stimulate and energize without reaction,” and forthwith the cook does as she is bid; when the poet or the philosopher, the artist or the artisan, the teacher or the taught, each can ask and receive confidently the exact food needed, then will human effort reach its highest achievement.'


-_Mrs. Welch's Cookbook_

(It's interesting to contrast the 'food convenient' in Proverbs -- enough that he would not steal and take God's name in vain, not so much that he would be full and deny God. Food convenient for him seems to have been simply the provision of daily bread that would best help him to depend on God for food?)


----------



## a mere housewife

Joshua said:


> I'm pretty sure vegetarianism/veganism's of the devil.


 
Yes, but would you agree with that assessment?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

My family eats a vegan diet. It is for health reasons. The term that best describes our diet is "Nutritarian" which is not necessarily vegan, but many Nutritarians are vegan. It is a diet consisting of real foods over processed. Focus on nutrient dense foods which are mainly vegetables. Unadulterated meat and dairy are good, but not in the mass quantities that the Standard American Diet Encourages. Healthy eating is more than good stewardship, it is a matter of preserving life and obeying the 6th commandment much like wearing seat belts and respecting the speed limit. We may die of a car accident anyway, but as responsible God fearing people we should promote such practices in order to preserve life.

For good resources on Nutritarian diets I highly recommend both Dr. Joel Fuhrman and Dr. John McDougall.


----------



## tt1106

Hi, I live with 4 (wife and 3 daughters) who are strict vegetarians and have been former Vegans. I think if they ever create a suitable soy substitute for sour cream and/or cheese, they might go full tilt. But alas, enchiladas knock them off the wagon each time. 
Two of my daughters have never had meat or cows milk from a carton, the other turned Vegetarian at 4 (13 years ago). I'd say my wife is very knowledgeable and has gone to great lengths to try and make a lasting effort by avoiding the mistakes of other carnivores turned vegetarians. 
She is adept at manipulating tvp (textured Vegetable protein (which I love) ) and makes wheat gluten Setan (like ham without the meat. Usually her dishes are very good. 
I'm getting into the thread late, but thought it was interesting.


----------



## Michael

tt1106 said:


> But alas, enchiladas knock them off the wagon each time.




Yeah, I could never do the vegan thing. Cheese is just too good!


----------



## Notthemama1984

They make veggie cheese. It tastes pretty good.


----------



## tt1106

Chaplainintraining said:


> They make veggie cheese. It tastes pretty good.


 
But it melts weird.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

tt1106 said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> They make veggie cheese. It tastes pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it melts weird.
Click to expand...

 
and it does not taste good.


----------



## Claudiu

Joshua said:


> I'm pretty sure vegetarianism/veganism's of the devil.


 

Do you really believe this?


----------



## Pergamum

a mere housewife said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruben: _In Defense of Food_ doesn't advocate avoiding (totally) meat or grains but in trying to cultivate the eating of more organic plants and vegetables. The "Western Diet" consumed in America is unbalanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergy, I was wondering how that would reflect on biblical cultures as well -- five loaves and two fishes, manna and quail, etc? (and I read Psalm 81 the other day -- God would have fed them with the finest of the wheat) I'm very much in favor of treating land and animals, and the people who farm them, with fairness, and there is a lot of injustice in our current way of life. But leeks and garlics weren't the provision of God for His people in the wilderness -- He took them away from that? And a certain kind of diet never seems to be a big deal outside of the ceremonial significance of clean and unclean. (Of course, I think it's common sense to eat your vegetables
> 
> Also I wanted to clarify re: idolatrous diets -- I hope I didn't come across as accusing anyone of idolatry (I'm sincerely sorry if I did). I have encountered a lot of thinking (and in the past I have come to think that I was defiling myself by eating a piece of bread, hence my reaction  along the lines of what follows in the quote below, from a cookbook written by one the first home-economics professors in the US, in a chapter rather notably entitled 'The Coming Cook'. The quote is in dead earnest, but it's almost a parody of claims inherent in statements made about many diets -- as if we could actually reverse the processes of decay in our bodies, effecting _moral_ change, until we usher in eschatological glory by means of what we put in our mouths. I think it's also common sense that good nutrition supports better mental and emotional function -- but God's way of salvation changes us from the inside out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Genuine civilization and good cooking are more closely related than is usually appreciated. Savages live on food either wholly or partially raw and have not the faintest conception of the routine of meals, variety of diet, and combination of flavors that are to us absolute necessities. They gorge themselves when food is plentiful, and starve when it is scarce. They eat the coarsest and the grossest substances without subjecting them to the refining effects of fire, or the transforming influence of condiments, herbs, or extracts. They know nothing of the subtle combinations by which the palate may be tickled and the digestive powers stimulated to easy and effective work.
> 'To their habits of eating may be ascribed, in great measure, their imperfect physical development, their mental dullness, and their moral obtuseness. Improve their diet and you have taken the first step towards a better life. Philanthropists and missionaries of all kinds are beginning to understand that no appeal can be effectually made to the higher nature until the stomach has first been revived, and that all reforms in the individual must proceed from this center to the head and heart.
> 'Coarse food, even though perfectly digested, produces coarse natures. . . . A sour stomach is apt to produce a sour temper. Melancholy, suspicion, envy, false and distorted views of men and things, follow dyspepsia as the shadow follows substance. . . .
> '. . . Comparative values are not sufficiently considered, even by those who urge most strenuously the advancement of the human race. Those who decry the claims of the body, and at the same time attempt to exalt the power of mental and spiritual growth, forget that the body is the medium through which the mind acts, and that one cannot be abused or depressed without very sensibly affecting the other. The only possible way to have a “sound mind” is first to secure a “sound body.”
> '. . . If the cook but knew what influence she might exert, and if the world valued her services properly, what a revolution would be wrought in human affairs.
> 'When a tired man can say to his cook: “I am weary — refresh me with that which will be easy to digest, which will stimulate and energize without reaction,” and forthwith the cook does as she is bid; when the poet or the philosopher, the artist or the artisan, the teacher or the taught, each can ask and receive confidently the exact food needed, then will human effort reach its highest achievement.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -_Mrs. Welch's Cookbook_
> 
> (It's interesting to contrast the 'food convenient' in Proverbs -- enough that he would not steal and take God's name in vain, not so much that he would be full and deny God. Food convenient for him seems to have been simply the provision of daily bread that would best help him to depend on God for food?)
Click to expand...

 
That's an awesome quote, Heidi!


----------



## Idelette

Actually, I agree with Megan about the grains. The main reason grains were used for hundreds of years in many societies, is because of its low cost and accessibility,not for health reasons. In fact, almost every nation that relied exclusively on grains has had severe health problems as a result. Fiber in and of itself is undigestible by the human body. Some would even classify it as a toxin because too much fiber can actually cause irreversible damage. Fiber simply binds with water and passes through the intestinal track bulking stool; which is the only reason it is good for. However, most grains contain gluten which is a high allergen. You would be amazed how many people have a gluten-intolerance and not know it! In fact, it is said that only a small percentage of people can actually tolerate grains well. 

Two of the healthiest cultures in the world are parts of the Mediterranean and Japan. Both diets are actually low-grain and some completely gluten-free. Their diets consist of mainly seafood, raw vegetables, beans, sea salt, oils rich in omega 3's, and fruits. Both diets eat mainly fresh, unprocessed foods. In all honesty it's the processing of foods that is most harmful. And in my opinion, even more so than eating red meat. Personally, if someone were to ask me how they could improve their health by eliminating something from their diet; I would suggest eliminating sugar and all processed foods way before I would suggest eliminating meat. Lean, naturally -raised meat actually has a lot of beneficial properties; minerals, proteins and enzymes that are all necessary. I do think limiting red meat is good, but I think eliminating other things from ones diet is far more beneficial! Just my two cents!


----------



## py3ak

I'll be provocative. Any religion based on food is idolatry, because the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. We can value nutrition, but salvation through nutrition is a dangerous error, and a quite popular and widespread heresy of our time.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Almost every false religion has one or more dietary rules and/or restrictions.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

py3ak said:


> Any religion based on food is idolatry, because the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. We can value nutrition, but salvation through nutrition is a dangerous error, and a quite popular and widespread heresy of our time.



This is a good succinct quote. I used it today when explaining my diet to someone on Facebook.


----------



## au5t1n

TeachingTulip said:


> Almost every false religion has one or more dietary rules and/or restrictions.


 
I've never thought of it that way before, but good point. On the other hand, the true religion had some too as a church under age.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Idelette said:


> Actually, I agree with Megan about the grains. The main reason grains were used for hundreds of years in many societies, is because of its low cost and accessibility,not for health reasons. In fact, almost every nation that relied exclusively on grains has had severe health problems as a result. Fiber in and of itself is undigestible by the human body. Some would even classify it as a toxin because too much fiber can actually cause irreversible damage. Fiber simply binds with water and passes through the intestinal track bulking stool; which is the only reason it is good for. However, most grains contain gluten which is a high allergen. You would be amazed how many people have a gluten-intolerance and not know it! In fact, it is said that only a small percentage of people can actually tolerate grains well.
> 
> Two of the healthiest cultures in the world are parts of the Mediterranean and Japan. Both diets are actually low-grain and some completely gluten-free. Their diets consist of mainly seafood, raw vegetables, beans, sea salt, oils rich in omega 3's, and fruits. Both diets eat mainly fresh, unprocessed foods. In all honesty it's the processing of foods that is most harmful. And in my opinion, even more so than eating red meat. Personally, if someone were to ask me how they could improve their health by eliminating something from their diet; I would suggest eliminating sugar and all processed foods way before I would suggest eliminating meat. Lean, naturally -raised meat actually has a lot of beneficial properties; minerals, proteins and enzymes that are all necessary. I do think limiting red meat is good, but I think eliminating other things from ones diet is far more beneficial! Just my two cents!




Thank you for helping me... I was starting to feel like an idiot.


----------



## LawrenceU

Try living on a low grain fiber diet for a few years and see what happens to your colon. It ain't pretty. That is one of the major reasons that colon cancer is increasing in record numbers. The modern Western diet is a low grain fiber diet. It is being adopted all over the world and the result is appendicitis and colon cancer increases in those countries.

One aspect of diet is that we Westerns don't look at diet holistically, even 'holistic' types. We look at diet clinically trying to figure out what little part is good and what little part is bad. One cannot say that the Mediterranean or Japanese or Inuit or. . . diet is best simply because of health indicators in that particular part of the world. There are too many other non food factors that impact health. Things like climate, stress, distress, family, community, transportation, and a whole lot more that cannot be analysed in a lab have significant impacts on physical health.


----------



## Megan Mozart

By the way, I just realized the contradictory nature of having Tom and Jerry mix as my avatar and my nutrition theory...  





py3ak said:


> I'll be provocative. Any religion based on food is idolatry, because the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. We can value nutrition, but salvation through nutrition is a dangerous error, and a quite popular and widespread heresy of our time.


 
This is very true. I have to be careful watching the Biggest Loser because even though I love that show it certainly preaches salvation through health, which makes me want to make diet and exercise my life.

I'm probably going to regret sharing this, but a couple of years ago I did have a brief stint (_very_ brief) of anorexia and bulimia. No doctor officially diagnosed me but that's what I had. I was depressed at the time and for some reason I decided at the time that being thin would be the thing to make me feel better (I have been at least a little overweight for most of my life). Though I had the behaviors for only a short time, I still tormented myself for a while with wanting to be thin. 

Now I don't really care that much anymore about being thin, thanks to God's grace, but after that I wanted to have perfect health, yet at the same time struggle with binge eating or unhealthy foods, which is a leftover remnant of my "bulimia". It is one of the most frustrating things in the world to be caught between two idolatrous sins like that, and I could never emphasize that enough. 

I thought I could never get out of that hard place, but yet again God rescued me from that. Now I have a much healthier view of exercise and diet and my happiness doesn't bank on it anymore. I can't believe what God has done to me. It is amazing. Now I just enjoy exercise because it is FUN (it never used to be) and because it just gives me so much more energy throughout the day and I feel better. As far as diet goes, I still struggle with eating too much, going to the store all the time and buying snacks because I'm bored. I've been trying to make consistent meal plans so that I don't have to deal with those cravings. Also, aside from whether or not they're good for you, I just love vegetables and fruits. I am addicted to apples lately. I think I'm going to have another one.

So anyways, that is my disclaimer to idolatrous dieting. I've been there, done that, and there is no way I'm going back or encouraging anyone else to for that matter. There is however a lot that I learned in my journey about the scientific facts about what is good for your body and how it works (I watched and read a lot of stuff about it), so if someone is interested in knowing what a good diet is, I'm happy to tell them. But I am sorry if I am came across as advocating idolatry in my answer.


----------



## Megan Mozart

I guess my main point is this: salvation through health is definitely an idolatry running rampant in our culture. I've lived it. But caring about your health, and having an idea about health that is different than most people's, is not the same as idolatry.


----------



## a mere housewife

Megan Mozart said:


> I guess my main point is this: salvation through health is definitely an idolatry running rampant in our culture. I've lived it. But caring about your health, and having an idea about health that is different than most people's, is not the same as idolatry.


 
Megan, I agree with that statement -- of course various data supports different theories, and any time the word 'should' comes in the discussion becomes _morally_ loaded (I don't even remember if anyone has used that word in this discussion: but so often people do when trying to say that one kind of diet is better than another). I think the main thing is to eat to the glory of God, with thanksgiving (I think you made this statement earlier too?). If we are merely indulging ourselves without care for the temple He has given to us, the sin is in our hearts, not in the food; in large part, the grains, meats, veggies, available to people throughout cultures and centuries have been adequate to sustain them in God's service for as long as I have any desire to live on this earth, and we don't need to scruple in conscience about eating regular food.


----------



## Megan Mozart

a mere housewife said:


> If we are merely indulging ourselves without care for the temple He has given to us, the sin is in our hearts, not in the food; in large part, the grains, meats, veggies, available to people throughout cultures and centuries have been adequate to sustain them in God's service, and we don't need to scruple in conscience about eating regular food.


 
I don't think eating unhealthy foods is a sin. Sorry if I sounded that way.


----------



## a mere housewife

Oh, Megan, I don't think there's any need to apologise: it's good to clarify, and I've appreciated your clarifications. Thank you.


----------



## au5t1n

The discussions about grains have been really interesting here. I'm going to have to cast my vote on the grains = good side, if we're talking whole grains. Personally, if I had to guess, I'd say modern health problems have more to do with processed sugar, vegetable oil, processed foods, and junk food in general than with any of the major food groups. We don't eat too much meat, grains, dairy, fruits, vegetables, etc. We eat too many chips and twinkies. A good rule of thumb is if God made it (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, meat, beans, dairy, etc.) it's probably good for you in reasonable amounts. The more man has fooled around with it, the worse. An exception would be man cooking our meat instead of eating it raw, but even that was commanded by God from the time we started eating animals (after the Flood).


----------



## VictorBravo

I just read this thread and thought of one thing:

[video=youtube;jBsPZV14I-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBsPZV14I-k[/video]

Seriously, I tried it in my early 20s because of some bad health advice from a Seventh Day Adventist physician. He figured that my low blood sugar and headaches could be cured by a vegetarian diet. As the song goes, "I made it nearly 70 days."

Then, one day, when I felt real crummy and low, I resolved to go down to the Stockman's Bar and Cafe in Missoula Montana, where I ordered a double cheeseburger and a pint of beer.

I've felt pretty good ever since. The key for me is whenever I feel out of sorts is to eat well and simply, and then climb a mountain or some serious stairs. So far it has helped more than any diet. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Augusta

I have tried a few different diets on my kids for the sake of my son who has autism. I have thrown up my hands in defeat. All the various ones I tried were just too unrealistic or expensive. Now I just try to take what I learned from each one and so the best I can. I do blame the modern American diet for a lot of things like processed food that is no longer food when they are done with it. I do try to eat 'living' food. No, I don't mean with the heart still beating.  I mean the micro-organisms that are essential to digestion and health. If you saw what was in my purse on the purse/murse thread it had a lot of digestive aids.


----------



## LawrenceU

One of the things I miss more than anything else as a result of being commissioned to live in an urban/suburban area is REAL food. Not the stuff in the stores that has been hybridised for production, picked green, and shipped around the world. Not the meats that are raised in factories. No, I miss the vegetables, dairy products, eggs, game, and fish that we raised, shot, trapped, or caught. There is a world of difference both in taste and nutritional value.


----------



## TimV

Every successful culture in the history of the world, and most of the other ones, has used starches of one sort or another as it's basic food. Grains, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and a couple others. Even today Japanese eat one average almost a pound of rice per day. I would like to see an example of a Mediterranean culture that doesn't have a starch as it's staple.

People naturally crave a starch as a staple. Fruits and veggies don't satisfy people on an instinctive level.

There are a zillion places in the Bible where this is taken for granted: Man does not live by bread alone. That assumes bread to be a staple. What are the horticultural sacrifices in the Bible? You offer a sheaf of grain. You eat Passover bread, etc...

12,000,000,000,000 people or so since the flood, rich and poor, slave and free, and what are the exceptions? Some primitive Bushmen who live til 35 if they're lucky, and a few others. The chance that some unknown fad diet book author is going to discover something that hasn't been verified false through observation over 5000 years is zero, really.

Some of you are being a bit too quick to discount mountainously heavy amounts of empirical evidence ;-)


----------



## au5t1n

"We elves prefer to stick to the four main food groups - candy, candy canes, candy corn, and syrup."
-Will Ferrel in Elf (paraphrase from memory)


----------



## py3ak

Megan Mozart said:


> I guess my main point is this: salvation through health is definitely an idolatry running rampant in our culture. I've lived it. But caring about your health, and having an idea about health that is different than most people's, is not the same as idolatry.


 
Indeed, you are correct, on both points. I still think cutting out grains and meat is reckless, but I don't worry much about what people eat: it's more important, in my mind, to avoid the idolization of longevity or health or body image, and to be thankful for God's gifts, and self-controlled in our use of them.


----------



## Megan Mozart

Ugh, that is so important. It's unfortunate that I failed in my loving of God and loved other things before him, but I thank God now and I am "counting it as all joy when _ meet trials of various kinds, for... the testing of [my] faith produces steadfastness, and let[ting] steadfastness have its full effect, that  may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing"

That is also my prayer for many others who truly morbidly obese and work very hard to get out of it and end up being very healthy, but become more of a son of hell than what they were before, because they don't love God, but being healthy. I know what I went through, but how difficult it must be for the Christian who has to deal with that without making health their idol!_


----------



## Augusta

Tim is right about most cultures having some bread or bread-like staple. One of the things I learned from the various diets I tried is the reason that so many today have celiacs or wheat intolerance is that they bleach the flour to kill off any micro-organisms so that it will have a longer shelf life. Yeast in the old days came from your own sourdough starter that you made just by harvesting micro organisms from the air. These did a great job of consuming the undigestible elements in the bread during the rising period. With mass production you just don't get that anymore. Therefore, your gut can only stand so much abuse before you can't eat it at all. 

They do this to most things that are on the shelf and not in a freezer or refridgerator. Micro-organisms are why things spoil. If most of your food comes off the shelf then that's not good. If it doesn't spoil for years like say a twinkie, be afraid, be very afraid.


----------



## a mere housewife

Augusta said:


> Yeast in the old days came from your own sourdough starter that you made just by harvesting micro organisms from the air.


 
A friend of mine does this: I had never heard of it before she started telling me about it: it's absolutely fascinating.


----------



## Adam's Eve

We try to eat as healthily as we can (naturally raised meats, fresh vegetables (from the garden if we can get them), etc). But we had an interesting situation recently that I think makes the point. We (my husband and three daughters under the age of 4) had all been struggling with sickness, passing it around, and then around again, etc. We were trying to eat healthily, take our vitamins, get sleep, etc... but we just kept getting sick. We were out one day, running some errands, and it happened to be around suppertime. The closest (and cheapest) place was McDonalds... but, ya know, we couldn't go there... we didn't need anymore sickness! Well, anyway, to make a long story short, we did end up going there, and asking God to bless our food, as normal... and we actually started getting better! We seem to have finally kicked the thing (whatever it was), but it was interesting to us to see that God IS the one who makes food good for us. Not saying you should go out and eat McDonalds every night for supper, but... God is the one who brings us sickness, as well as health, for His own purposes, in His own time.


----------



## Idelette

LawrenceU said:


> Try living on a low grain fiber diet for a few years and see what happens to your colon. It ain't pretty. That is one of the major reasons that colon cancer is increasing in record numbers. The modern Western diet is a low grain fiber diet. It is being adopted all over the world and the result is appendicitis and colon cancer increases in those countries.
> 
> One aspect of diet is that we Westerns don't look at diet holistically, even 'holistic' types. We look at diet clinically trying to figure out what little part is good and what little part is bad. One cannot say that the Mediterranean or Japanese or Inuit or. . . diet is best simply because of health indicators in that particular part of the world. There are too many other non food factors that impact health. Things like climate, stress, distress, family, community, transportation, and a whole lot more that cannot be analysed in a lab have significant impacts on physical health.


 
Well, I don't have much time to reply to this now, but I just wanted to point something out. If you do enough research you will actually see that the typical American diet today has more "grain" in it then ever before, yet the incidences of colon cancer have increased significantly over the years! We have just as much grain as any other country, however, the difference lies in the _PROCESSING _of those grains! In the U.S. most grain undergoes extensive processing, and In my humble opinion this is what has led to significant increases in colon cancer, not a lack of grains! (which btw, I have a good friend right now that is undergoing surgery, radiation and chemo for colon cancer, and he's only 27 years old!) Even the USDA recommended food pyramid was recently changed to reflect this. If we were so grain deprived then why did the USDA do this? I would check out Wikipedia really quick and read the portion titled "Controversial" just to give you an idea. Food guide pyramid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

And, yes, I agree with you that there are many factors that determine health, however, all other things being equal....diet is the highest factor! I've studied these issues for the past 10 years due to chronic health problems that I _USED TO HAVE_--which were all eliminated by simply changing one thing and that was my diet! I've researched the history of foods, the agriculture industry, the business of marketing/patenting/ and selling food and the history of cultures etc. When I made the comment above about Medittereanean and Japanese diets it wasn't just a flippant comment...it was an educated comment based on 10 years of research! Anyhow, I just wanted to clarify some of these things, if anyone wants some evidence or stats, feel free to contact me! Like I said before, I believe its the processing of foods that is more harmful than anything else! That's just my two cents!


----------



## Megan Mozart

I have heard a lot of people in this thread appeal to the bible for including more grains than I think we need in the diet.

Is this sound? Just like many people like to use the bible as a science book, I don't think we need to use the bible as diet advice.

I think the ubiquity of grains in the diet mentioned in the bible could be explained by what Yvonne and I have said (grains were a staple simply because they make you feel full, cheap to make and easy to store), not God trying to promote a diet like the food pyramid with grains on the bottom.

Otherwise, should we just make all of our bread like God tells Ezekiel in Ezekiel 4:9? It involves cooking it over human dung... well, if God gave the recipe it must be holy.  (Now I know nobody here would say that.)

Note: there is actually a whole brand of products called Ezekiel 4:9 which uses the same whole grains in that passage, and I eat it when I want to eat a healthy bread, since it contains many whole grains and it is actually a living bread - it's sprouted. But I doubt they cook it over human dung.


----------



## a mere housewife

Megan, I think the Bible's reference to grains is brought in to show that grains are not evil, and that they were obviously considered a staple food -- so we need not have _qualms_ of conscience in eating them as such? 

Yvonne, I'm quite interested: I thought we currently shared some general kinds of health conditions from things you've said recently on other threads? Are all your health issues cleared up now (that would be wonderful -- I've been praying for you).

In that regard, I've been reluctant to say anything about female health conditions in public , but it might be good to mention it as soy/tofu products are a staple of some kinds of diets mentioned in the thread -- that they *can* negatively impact some female health conditions: obviously that isn't by and large, and probably other factors go into that than merely having the condition: but they can do something with female hormones and so exacerbate symptoms like pain, bleeding, etc. Just something to be aware of the possibility of.


----------



## TimV

> Otherwise, should we just make all of our bread like God tells Ezekiel in Ezekiel 4:9? It involves cooking it over human dung... well, if God gave the recipe it must be holy. (Now I know nobody here would say that.)



That's one of the examples of something being good or evil just because God says it's good or evil. Genocide is forbidden, but if God says it's good on one occasion, it's good on that one occasion. Or marrying a whore, or cooking over dung. According to Biblical law, human dung has to be buried. The case in Ezekiel is God making an exception that we aren't allowed to. So, cooking over human dung is like the Israelis bulldozing the house of the parents of suicide bombers. It's sinful, since God in the 10 Commandments claims the right to punish the sins of the fathers on the children, but says we humans aren't allowed to.

There were plenty of veggies in the ANE, including Israel. Several are mentioned, as are fruits. But except for wine during Passover and bitter herbs with the meat I can't think of anything else used in sacrifice. As I said, it's taken for granted that grains are the staple of their diet, even for rich folk. Abraham rushed to prepare lamb and bread for the Angel. Solomon was the richest man who ever lived, and the wisest, and his household's monthly food included


> 1Ki 4:22 Solomon's provision for one day was thirty cors of fine flour and sixty cors of meal,
> 1Ki 4:23 ten fat oxen, and twenty pasture-fed cattle, a hundred sheep, besides deer, gazelles, roebucks, and fattened fowl.



Rich or poor, educated or ignorant, you will struggle to find any healthy population that doesn't have a starch as a staple.

Even in the NT, Christ's miracles include wine, fish and bread.

Yvonne, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about overly processed grains.


----------



## Andres

Here is my diet - i just eat whatever is put in front of me. "But Andrew, don't you cook for yourself?!" Sure, in that case, I eat whatever's in the fridge and/or cabinet.


----------



## Megan Mozart

a mere housewife said:


> In that regard, I've been reluctant to say anything about female health conditions in public , but it might be good to mention it as soy/tofu products are a staple of some kinds of diets mentioned in the thread -- that they *can* negatively impact some female health conditions: obviously that isn't by and large, and probably other factors go into that than merely having the condition: but they can do something with female hormones and so exacerbate symptoms like pain, bleeding, etc. Just something to be aware of the possibility of.


 
I try to not eat soy that much.

Soy is really bad for a pregnant woman. Yet another reason to avoid processed grains, since soy is ubiquitous in anything processed.


----------



## a mere housewife

Megan, I sometimes wonder though if a lot of the info out there isn't generalised from rare cases like myself: I have a hard time sorting through all the info because so little of it seems to have been tested with fully scientific standards. And in my own experience, though certainly people who generally seem predisposed to allergies etc do very badly with processed foods, the families in my church who eat healthily, don't eat a lot of pre-prepared etc., but eat regular grocery store food through pregnancies etc are healthier overall than families in Mexico who ate very few processed foods -- hygiene is obviously a factor; but processing is surely to some degree part of the hygiene consideration? Also, I wonder if some of the studies re: current health conditions don't take into account that these conditions were not easily diagnosed or kept track of in the past -- you would know more about whether they factor these things in than I do? Certainly we live longer now overall than we did previously, though foods were not processed so heavily.

I *am* quite sensitive to a number of things other people tolerate without problems, and I can't have soy. I don't know that the problems associated with it are necessarily going to happen, but as they could, it seems good to have some awareness in case they do.


----------



## py3ak

I think several different discussions are kind of getting mixed up (which is fine, but can be confusing).

One is the question of the morality of food. On that point, the Bible is quite clear. _Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving._ We are to be grateful for what God gives us, and enjoy good food, while not eating for drunkenness. God gives bread, and wine, and oil; and animals and herbs and fruit. We must be firm on this point against those who would attempt to make us feel guilty for eating.

Again, the Bible is quite clear that there is no salvation through nutrition. _Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God shall destroy both it and them._ We can enjoy God's goodness through a grateful use of good food, but eating and drinking are not and never can be the kingdom of God. We must be firm on this point against those who would attempt to make a religion out of diet (or health or longevity: I am not commanded to live long, or to be well, but to be faithful with what I have: a subtle shift of emphasis that may quite radically change the approach).

The Bible is also clear that for some people their god is their belly, and man does not live by bread alone, and so we are called to discipline, to self-restraint in the matter of food, as in the matter of any other appetite. It doesn't make food bad; but it's no surprise that we are capable of abusing this gift as well.

That's one discussion, but I don't think there's much disagreement there: we just have to remember these things and try to keep them as fundamental in all our thinking about diet, and diet recommendations.

Then there is the question of what foods are healthy and what foods are unhealthy. That's a separate issue, and on that score, what is good for some people may not be good for others (allergies are an easy example: peanuts are, in fact, very bad for some people). Now there are hundreds of diets out there, all claiming to be effective for their particular purpose, whether it be weight loss or building muscle mass or improving your health or increasing your longevity or mental agility, or whatever. Here, it's obvious that we can't dictate to one another; that the field is broader than what can be studied, but that the studies probably exceed the grasp of most individuals, and that common sense is your best friend. Some of the diets are dangerous, some are stupid, some are unpalatable, and some are simple variations on a theme: but good and bad diets are marketed aggressively and deceptively, with appeals to self-righteousness and self-indulgence of every form. The thing I would be concerned about here would be making recommendations that, though perhaps intrinsically pretty decent are completely inapplicable to the case of the person receiving the recommendation (see Vic's example above), or through reductive thinking coming to embrace a diet that can be positively dangerous. Take as an example the addition of fiber to yogurt. That fiber is vital for the proper functioning of the human organism, I take it, is not really a controvertible proposition. That the "fiber" in yogurt does any good has yet to be proven. Isolating a nutrient from its proper context, whether as a supplement or through processing or by making it the dominant factor in a diet, seems unlikely to obtain good results. In the same way, isolating diet from exercise habits, sleep patterns, stress levels, etc., is also unhelpful. I take it that all this complexity basically means that we are all reduced to the level of listening to anecdotes and learning by our own experiments what works for us, unless we are in the position to hire a personal consultant to design a lifestyle for our own health - and if that's our case, we probably need to add a personal chaplain to remind us that we will return to dust and that the fashion of this world perishes.

Another issue is the use of the Bible with regard to diets. Obviously there are people who abuse Scripture ("The Maker's Diet") in order to impose a system of eating that binds the conscience. I haven't seen that on the thread. But inasmuch as the Bible gives reliable historical evidence, it is certainly fair to point out, for instance, that Isaac, who lived far longer than any of us will (and lived longer than his father or his son) was very fond of eating wild game. The Bible does take it for granted that grain will be a fundamental part of the diet: that doesn't make it a prescription, but it does mean that any recommendation to eat primarily vegetables is unhistorical and consequently to be received with quite a fair degree of skepticism. It may be true, as Huxley has suggested, that the ideas of the Biblical people's about what constituted an exciting feast may have been conditioned by the difficulty of acquiring much in the way of fats in their diet; but since they wrote down those things under divine inspiration it seems a reasonable conclusion that meat and bread, butter and cheese and honey are (by and large) objectively good.

These discussions always get around to the matter of general health, and comparisons with the past. Well, the only golden past that can really be demonstrated is too far away for us to ever return. And I am always skeptical of statistics in this matter. Because rising "levels" of some disease are merely rising levels of reports of a given disease. And people often mistake the meaning of the statistics. Just last month I ran across two separate authors who thought that if average life expectancy was lower in the past that must have meant it was very unusual for anyone to pass 40. But that is nonsense: if 50% of babies die before they are one, and the average life expetancy is 40, then a lot of people were living well beyond that point.

In summary, don't expect that other people's experience will mirror your own; don't buy marketing campaigns disguised as science, or science that neglects common sense; and keep in mind that Scripture gives us liberty to enjoy food, while reminding us that it is ultimately a matter of very little moment.


----------



## Andres

py3ak said:


> I think several different discussions are kind of getting mixed up (which is fine, but can be confusing).
> 
> One is the question of the morality of food. On that point, the Bible is quite clear. _Every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving._ We are to be grateful for what God gives us, and enjoy good food, while not eating for drunkenness. God gives bread, and wine, and oil; and animals and herbs and fruit. We must be firm on this point against those who would attempt to make us feel guilty for eating.
> 
> Again, the Bible is quite clear that there is no salvation through nutrition. _Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God shall destroy both it and them._ We can enjoy God's goodness through a grateful use of good food, but eating and drinking are not and never can be the kingdom of God. We must be firm on this point against those who would attempt to make a religion out of diet (or health or longevity: I am not commanded to live long, or to be well, but to be faithful with what I have: a subtle shift of emphasis that may quite radically change the approach).
> 
> The Bible is also clear that for some people their god is their belly, and man does not live by bread alone, and so we are called to discipline, to self-restraint in the matter of food, as in the matter of any other appetite. It doesn't make food bad; but it's no surprise that we are capable of abusing this gift as well.
> 
> That's one discussion, but I don't think there's much disagreement there: we just have to remember these things and try to keep them as fundamental in all our thinking about diet, and diet recommendations.
> 
> Then there is the question of what foods are healthy and what foods are unhealthy. That's a separate issue, and on that score, what is good for some people may not be good for others (allergies are an easy example: peanuts are, in fact, very bad for some people). Now there are hundreds of diets out there, all claiming to be effective for their particular purpose, whether it be weight loss or building muscle mass or improving your health or increasing your longevity or mental agility, or whatever. Here, it's obvious that we can't dictate to one another; that the field is broader than what can be studied, but that the studies probably exceed the grasp of most individuals, and that common sense is your best friend. Some of the diets are dangerous, some are stupid, some are unpalatable, and some are simple variations on a theme: but good and bad diets are marketed aggressively and deceptively, with appeals to self-righteousness and self-indulgence of every form. The thing I would be concerned about here would be making recommendations that, though perhaps intrinsically pretty decent are completely inapplicable to the case of the person receiving the recommendation (see Vic's example above), or through reductive thinking coming to embrace a diet that can be positively dangerous. Take as an example the addition of fiber to yogurt. That fiber is vital for the proper functioning of the human organism, I take it, is not really a controvertible proposition. That the "fiber" in yogurt does any good has yet to be proven. Isolating a nutrient from its proper context, whether as a supplement or through processing or by making it the dominant factor in a diet, seems unlikely to obtain good results. In the same way, isolating diet from exercise habits, sleep patterns, stress levels, etc., is also unhelpful. I take it that all this complexity basically means that we are all reduced to the level of listening to anecdotes and learning by our own experiments what works for us, unless we are in the position to hire a personal consultant to design a lifestyle for our own health - and if that's our case, we probably need to add a personal chaplain to remind us that we will return to dust and that the fashion of this world perishes.
> 
> Another issue is the use of the Bible with regard to diets. Obviously there are people who abuse Scripture ("The Maker's Diet") in order to impose a system of eating that binds the conscience. I haven't seen that on the thread. But inasmuch as the Bible gives reliable historical evidence, it is certainly fair to point out, for instance, that Isaac, who lived far longer than any of us will (and lived longer than his father or his son) was very fond of eating wild game. The Bible does take it for granted that grain will be a fundamental part of the diet: that doesn't make it a prescription, but it does mean that any recommendation to eat primarily vegetables is unhistorical and consequently to be received with quite a fair degree of skepticism. It may be true, as Huxley has suggested, that the ideas of the Biblical people's about what constituted an exciting feast may have been conditioned by the difficulty of acquiring much in the way of fats in their diet; but since they wrote down those things under divine inspiration it seems a reasonable conclusion that meat and bread, butter and cheese and honey are (by and large) objectively good.
> 
> These discussions always get around to the matter of general health, and comparisons with the past. Well, the only golden past that can really be demonstrated is too far away for us to ever return. And I am always skeptical of statistics in this matter. Because rising "levels" of some disease are merely rising levels of reports of a given disease. And people often mistake the meaning of the statistics. Just last month I ran across two separate authors who thought that if average life expectancy was lower in the past that must have meant it was very unusual for anyone to pass 40. But that is nonsense: if 50% of babies die before they are one, and the average life expetancy is 40, then a lot of people were living well beyond that point.
> 
> In summary, don't expect that other people's experience will mirror your own; don't buy marketing campaigns disguised as science, or science that neglects common sense; and keep in mind that Scripture gives us liberty to enjoy food, while reminding us that it is ultimately a matter of very little moment.


----------



## a mere housewife

(A quick ps re: soy/tofu: these things are of course quite significant in Oriental diets as well as vegetarian, and oriental diets are said to be healthy. The 'purer' the form of soy, the more problems I actually have with it, so I'm pretty sure this is not a problem with processing and that it is also not something necessarily associated with soy -- in general oriental women seem to be healthy.)


----------



## TimV

Ruben, I enjoyed your post, as I almost always do, but I'll throw this out there:



> I am not commanded to live long, or to be well



I'm not sure that's exactly true, although the scholar in you has probably thought this through farther than I have. If the Bible says moderation in all things is good, then one could, in my opinion, fairly easily make a case for saying a moderate diet to be beneficial. Paul also says physical exercise helps some (fair paraphrase? Comments?)

And this may be the theonomist in me creeping out farther than it should, but I had a man tell me when I was a teenager that the Biblical prohibition against eating fat was because it was the best part, and God wanted it for Himself. I thought that through, and even as an arminian baptist resolved not to eat fat from then on based on what I saw as ridiculously faulty logic ;-)

Too much honey makes you barf. (Another fair paraphrase? Comments?) Bread you are assumed to scarf, more simple carbs you are supposed to restrain yourself (beekeeper here! So I must have that one right?).

I don't see how anyone can read Proverbs through and doubt that God wants us (generally: Revealed will) to live long and be well. Drink a little wine. Honey is health to the bone. Bread makes a man's heart strong. Olive oil makes his face shine. Goat's milk will sustain your maidens.

Some of you have seen my kids in person, and others on my website. While I (not just a hypocritical example of humility, but deeply felt) still beat up myself for neglecting my families vastly more important emotional and spiritual needs, I did indeed raise the kids according to Biblical principles of health, and my sons are, to say the least studly, and my daughters exceptional. As in medals whenever they got to MMA tournaments, getting work from people in construction even in this economy, etc...

The Bible has tons to say about health, including (but in no way most importantly) diet. No road kill, no polar bear liver, no fat or blood sausage, and all the positive things.

Anyway, just throwin' it out there.

Megan, I'm so proud of you as a new wife who cares so much about this subject!!! You're a treasure. And Heidi, if you get any more wise, I think I'll just join the CRC and nominate you as an elder


----------



## VictorBravo

py3ak said:


> it seems a reasonable conclusion that meat and bread, butter and cheese and honey are (by and large) objectively good.


 
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Ruben. I especially liked the above, mainly because that turns out to be my favorite diet. 

I do add squash and green beans to the list, but only because they are so easy to grow and we have to eat them up.


----------



## py3ak

Tim, there is no doubt that health is a blessing, and wasting it is foolish. After all, being healthy gives us scope to serve God more extensively than being unhealthy. And so there is the command to take care of your stomach by using wine in preference to water. And far it from me to suggest that following God's commandments is imprudent. So the command of temperance is certainly beneficial to one's health; but you can't ground the command to be temperate on the health benefit. Important though that may be, it is more important not to be brought under the power of something, to be free from all other servitudes to enjoy the servitude of Christ. Diet can influence a child's growth, but Christ still asserts that we can't add a cubit to our stature: and diet can contribute to our longevity, but God is still the one who sets the measure of our days. And so I don't make those things my goal, but rather to be faithful with what I have. Naturally part of that is preserving what I have to be used again tomorrow - but part of that is also a willingness to _be spent_ in the service of God. When health or longevity or prosperity become my goal, instead of a possible fringe benefit of obeying the Lord, it seems to me that I have begun to lose something of my freedom to follow the Lord.

Vic, if we can swap out the squash for potatoes and replace the green beans with celery we'll have the ingredients for a truly noble feast.


----------



## TimV

> Diet can influence a child's growth, but Christ still asserts that we can't add a cubit to our stature:



Actually He said you can't add an inch to your stature by worrying. You can add several inches by good diet, thrift, and a zillion other things. I don't buy that one, brother, but you're still my hero ;-)


----------



## py3ak

Tim, you're right about the passage, of course, and I should have qualified. I did point out that we can influence growth, though. I agree that by taking thought, or fretting, we accomplish nothing (except perhaps the opposite of what we intended). But height and longevity are not fundamentally under my control (though I could gain a few inches by having some strategic bones strategically broken), and are not to consume me. By setting my gaze that low, I am moving myself away from the standpoint of (a quite possibly short) Paul for whom death was gain.

By the way, thanks for your kind words. I have often profited from your knack for odd pieces of information and ability to point out a relevant Biblical text on points that at first seem to be quite unaddressed by Scripture.


----------



## TimV

> But height and longevity are not fundamentally under my control



They are! They are under the (humanly speaking) control of the church, and it's influence on society. The Dutch weren't always, genetically, taller than Chinese. They are since Christianity influenced Holland more than China, at this point in history. And you should know that, having been raised in a largely heathen culture.

God's law is more valuable than rubies and gold. Christ's resurrection didn't change the way calcium is incorperated into the human body.


----------



## py3ak

That's a very interesting view. Especially since I don't recall Scripture mentioning any godly giants. Even if it's true, though, which might be hard to demonstrate, you can hardly argue that Saul was responsible for being head and shoulders taller than everyone else, and if you make that admission you have granted the substance of my position.

Having been raised in a largely heathen culture, and more importantly, having ridden the bus extensively in a largely heathen culture, I have stopped thinking of height as a blessing!


----------



## a mere housewife

Mr. V you're so kind -- and I agree with you completely about Megan . 

And I agree with Ruben about riding the bus.


----------



## TimV

Riding a buss? Now that would be an interesting subject, since I've done it to on multiple continents.

But to the point, the Dutch are taller than those you sat next to on SAmerican buses, and it's due to medical and dietary practices. Please comment if you disagree.


----------



## py3ak

If you want to discuss busses I think we'll need another thread. Soy and gluten are forming quite a bit of bulk in this one.

The Dutch are, as a rule, taller than Mexicans (probably due to never having acquired the abominable habit of the Yucatecos of stuffing Edam cheeses with various kinds of pepper). As a rule, the sons of Anak were taller than the sons of Phinehas.


----------

