Paleo Eating
Options
Replies
-
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
I can't be the only one that found the comparison of the Paleo diet to a religion a bit comical?0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
I can't be the only one that found the comparison of the Paleo diet to a religion a bit comical?
I thought it was telling.0 -
Totally agree.0
-
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."
I'm fairly certain there are some Christians that don't hold to the state of grace definition. But, pish. That would be beside the point, right?
It's a simple metaphor in that there are several sects and definitions of different types of Christians -- and because you happen to adhere to one or only adhere to some of the guiding tenants doesn't nullify your inclusion in the group in general.
But, some fail to understand the basis of basic analogies, so they get wrapped up in catechism definitions of what is a state of grace which is completely inapplicable. The whole point of an analogy is that they share a similar relationship (not that all issues are perfectly parallel). Man, I hope such people don't make their living on critical thinking and reasoning skills.0 -
Let me see...
I started my morning with oatmeal (processed) with brown sugar (processed), chopped pecans (processed), and raisins (processed). I also enjoyed a large coffee (processed) with cream (processed) , sugar (processed) and hazelnut shot (processed).
I'll let you know what have for lunch.
This is what drives me nuts....of course in this day and age you are going to eat "processed" food, whether Paleo or not. Unless you're a farmer who grows/raises everything you eat and does all of the butchering, etc, yourself, you are eating processed food. I think everyone has enough common sense to know that what is meant by processed, in this discussion, is the chemical/sodum/sugar laden food that is abundantly available, like chips, cookies, freezer meals, and many other forms of convenience foods. Of course our meat, nuts, raisins, coffee, etc are processed, because we don't do it ourselves. There is a big difference between processed chopped pecans and processed oreos. For example, tuna in a can....something healthy for you, full of good for you stuff, so why do they feel the need to add vegetable broth (which has lord knows what chemicals and additives) and soy to it? Why can't we just get tuna in a can with water or olive oil?? Thankfully some companies do that, but the majority of them add stuff. Dates is another example...they are super sweet on their own, so why does the bag I bought the other day have sugar added??? It's unnecessary and unhealthy.
Oh hey, food for thought that has nothing to do with this topic, apparently scientists tested a bunch of canned tuna and tuna sushi and such and very little of it is actually tuna at all.
Really? What was it?
The stuff I get at sushi restaurants has a distinctive look and taste...do they have a vial of "raw tuna" flavor somewhere?
It's a different kind of fish, often. Since tuna is very over fished.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/59-of-the-tuna-americans-eat-is-not-tuna/273410/0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."
I'm fairly certain there are some Christians that don't hold to the state of grace definition. But, pish. That would be beside the point, right?
It's a simple metaphor in that there are several sects and definitions of different types of Christians -- and because you happen to adhere to one or only adhere to some of the guiding tenants doesn't nullify your inclusion in the group in general.
But, some fail to understand the basis of basic analogies, so they get wrapped up in catechism definitions of what is a state of grace which is completely inapplicable. The whole point of an analogy is that they share a similar relationship (not that all issues are perfectly parallel). Man, I hope such people don't make their living on critical thinking and reasoning skills.
Meh, I understood the comparison but it still made me laugh.0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."
touche0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."
I'm fairly certain there are some Christians that don't hold to the state of grace definition. But, pish. That would be beside the point, right?
It's a simple metaphor in that there are several sects and definitions of different types of Christians -- and because you happen to adhere to one or only adhere to some of the guiding tenants doesn't nullify your inclusion in the group in general.
But, some fail to understand the basis of basic analogies, so they get wrapped up in catechism definitions of what is a state of grace which is completely inapplicable. The whole point of an analogy is that they share a similar relationship (not that all issues are perfectly parallel). Man, I hope such people don't make their living on critical thinking and reasoning skills.
Meh, I understood the comparison but it still made me laugh.
No doubt. Sadly, I think it's terribly appropriate in other ways -- especially how so many factions will come out and bash other factions, for a variety of reasons. As if they have the one and only true way -- and are terribly threatened by others' truths. I'm not sure of any other topic that inspires that sort of fanaticism and tunnel vision than religion.0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."
I'm fairly certain there are some Christians that don't hold to the state of grace definition. But, pish. That would be beside the point, right?
It's a simple metaphor in that there are several sects and definitions of different types of Christians -- and because you happen to adhere to one or only adhere to some of the guiding tenants doesn't nullify your inclusion in the group in general.
But, some fail to understand the basis of basic analogies, so they get wrapped up in catechism definitions of what is a state of grace which is completely inapplicable. The whole point of an analogy is that they share a similar relationship (not that all issues are perfectly parallel). Man, I hope such people don't make their living on critical thinking and reasoning skills.
Meh, I understood the comparison but it still made me laugh.
No doubt. Sadly, I think it's terribly appropriate in other ways -- especially how so many factions will come out and bash other factions, for a variety of reasons. As if they have the one and only true way -- and are terribly threatened by others' truths. I'm not sure of any other topic that inspires that sort of fanaticism and tunnel vision than religion.
It must be so difficult for you to be in the top 10% of smart people and have to suffer fools like us.0 -
Let me see...
I started my morning with oatmeal (processed) with brown sugar (processed), chopped pecans (processed), and raisins (processed). I also enjoyed a large coffee (processed) with cream (processed) , sugar (processed) and hazelnut shot (processed).
I'll let you know what have for lunch.
This is what drives me nuts....of course in this day and age you are going to eat "processed" food, whether Paleo or not. Unless you're a farmer who grows/raises everything you eat and does all of the butchering, etc, yourself, you are eating processed food. I think everyone has enough common sense to know that what is meant by processed, in this discussion, is the chemical/sodum/sugar laden food that is abundantly available, like chips, cookies, freezer meals, and many other forms of convenience foods. Of course our meat, nuts, raisins, coffee, etc are processed, because we don't do it ourselves. There is a big difference between processed chopped pecans and processed oreos. For example, tuna in a can....something healthy for you, full of good for you stuff, so why do they feel the need to add vegetable broth (which has lord knows what chemicals and additives) and soy to it? Why can't we just get tuna in a can with water or olive oil?? Thankfully some companies do that, but the majority of them add stuff. Dates is another example...they are super sweet on their own, so why does the bag I bought the other day have sugar added??? It's unnecessary and unhealthy.
Oh hey, food for thought that has nothing to do with this topic, apparently scientists tested a bunch of canned tuna and tuna sushi and such and very little of it is actually tuna at all.
Really? What was it?
The stuff I get at sushi restaurants has a distinctive look and taste...do they have a vial of "raw tuna" flavor somewhere?
It's a different kind of fish, often. Since tuna is very over fished.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/59-of-the-tuna-americans-eat-is-not-tuna/273410/
"84% of fish samples labeled "white tuna" were actually escolar, a fish that can cause prolonged, uncontrollable, oily anal leakage."
I might as well take GC, hunh?0 -
Meh, I understood the comparison but it still made me laugh.
No doubt. Sadly, I think it's terribly appropriate in other ways -- especially how so many factions will come out and bash other factions, for a variety of reasons. As if they have the one and only true way -- and are terribly threatened by others' truths. I'm not sure of any other topic that inspires that sort of fanaticism and tunnel vision than religion.
It must be so difficult for you to be in the top 10% of smart people and have to suffer fools like us.
Only when it's disingenuous. I hate when people try to purposely muddy the waters -- obfuscates true discussion, sharing of ideas and learning. But, it's inevitable on the internet, especially at poorly moderated sites.0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."
I'm fairly certain there are some Christians that don't hold to the state of grace definition. But, pish. That would be beside the point, right?
It's a simple metaphor in that there are several sects and definitions of different types of Christians -- and because you happen to adhere to one or only adhere to some of the guiding tenants doesn't nullify your inclusion in the group in general.
But, some fail to understand the basis of basic analogies, so they get wrapped up in catechism definitions of what is a state of grace which is completely inapplicable. The whole point of an analogy is that they share a similar relationship (not that all issues are perfectly parallel). Man, I hope such people don't make their living on critical thinking and reasoning skills.
All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus. The disagreement is mostly over whether that is enough.0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.
However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.
Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."
I'm fairly certain there are some Christians that don't hold to the state of grace definition. But, pish. That would be beside the point, right?
It's a simple metaphor in that there are several sects and definitions of different types of Christians -- and because you happen to adhere to one or only adhere to some of the guiding tenants doesn't nullify your inclusion in the group in general.
But, some fail to understand the basis of basic analogies, so they get wrapped up in catechism definitions of what is a state of grace which is completely inapplicable. The whole point of an analogy is that they share a similar relationship (not that all issues are perfectly parallel). Man, I hope such people don't make their living on critical thinking and reasoning skills.
All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus. The disagreement is mostly over whether that is enough.0 -
Did it for about 3 days a few years ago. Then I realized I wasn't allowed to have my oats. Deal breaker.0
-
All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus.
Even that isn't true.0 -
Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?
A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.
But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.
Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions
How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?
Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.
I can't be the only one that found the comparison of the Paleo diet to a religion a bit comical?
You aren't the only one. Ridiculous.
Several thousand year old religions are just like fad diets that became popular last year, guys.
Did I tell you I keep kosher, but I eat bacon sometimes? It's really hard to stick to it 100%, this is the real world.0 -
All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus.
Even that isn't true.
Who not? I thought that was a key part of the major creeds?0 -
All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus.
Even that isn't true.
Who not? I thought that was a key part of the major creeds?
You don't need to believe in the divinity of Jesus to be a Christian, as evidenced by many of the founding fathers.0 -
All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus.
Even that isn't true.
Who not? I thought that was a key part of the major creeds?
You don't need to believe in the divinity of Jesus to be a Christian, as evidenced by many of the founding fathers.
That would be an interesting debate - are Unitarians Christian?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions