Tom:
>>I disagree that nature is perfect. Nature is a series of trade-offs, in
>>which animals struggle to survive long enough to reproduce. In general
>>terms, nature wants to kill you - via bacteria, viruses, predation,
>>starvation. Again, nature simply IS - best not to elevate it to
>>the level of presumed perfection.
Vicki:
>Now I see it...it's very clear now.
When you use sarcasm - especially without content - please use a smiley :-)
Vicki:
>The main difference between you and the NFL boys is this:
>You think nature is out to destroy you,
That is not what I am reading. What I hear Tom saying is that disease and
accidents do not only occur in "civilization" but also in nature.
>and the NFL boys think that nature is conspiring to do them good.
This is a good attitude to have if not taken too far.
>Negativity vs positive thinking in action.
I can be of the opinion that everybody who believes in the limitations of
gravity are negative fools but that will not protect me if decide in a fit
of positive exuberance to jump off a ten story building. :-)
>In one of their videos, NFL calls this phenomenon an "inverse paranoid" --
>someone who believes that nature is conspiring to do them good.
>Hey, it takes just as much energy to be an inverse paranoid than to be a
>paranoid!
That is very true, however, I do not see anyone on this list with such an
attitude which I think is more characteristic of proponents of allopathic
thought than of travelers on the raw food path.
>I don't really think that you know what NFL is all about.
>I asked them why they wrote their book in such a confrontational manner.
>They said something to the effect that a book is a cold medium -- it's not
>interactive, so it's you against yourself.
That might not be the only motive for choosing this style. It could also be
a marketing strategy to cover up for a lack of content.
>The book is like a mirror...what you get out of it is a reflection of
>yourself, whether it be good or bad.
Are you saying that provocative writings function as mirrors and more civil
and constructive do not? If this is the case Tom needs to change his modus
operandi if he is to get you to listen to him. :-)
>The book was specifically designed to cause emotion -- to get you to think,
When negative emotions flood the brain there is less activity in the
frontal lobes so I am not sure this tactic works too well. I doubt very
much that there would have been less people buying the book had it been
written with more tolerance and kindness.
>to get you to face your fears, preconceived ideas, and biases.
I find this a tall bill for a book on diet especially for those who follow
the diet and find it inadequate. No matter what the diet when the body is
not properly nourished, the nervous system will not be up to such emotional
and spiritual challenges.
>Bottom line: my life has improved 10 times since I have read their book -- it
>opened my eyes -- no other book has done that to such a great degree.
Good for you. One cannot argue success.
>I can see why some people may not like it though.
So, if I start treating you in a confrontational and provocative manner,
will you promise to see it as an opportunity to face your own fears and
limitations so that you better can grasp the essence of what I am saying? :-)
>If I am indeed just an NFL pawn, I'd much rather be a pawn on the side of
>success, happiness, and positive thinking, unlike some people on this list.
Vicki, of course you are not an NFL pawn. You obviously have found
something that, at least for now, works well for you and that has had a
dramatic & positive effect on your life. Maybe you would like to share with
us in little more detail exactly what NFL has done for you? What was your
diet like before, what is it like now, for how long have you been on the
diet, what health challenges have you overcome in the process, and which
are you still struggling with? Or is it more spiritually that you feel you
have benefitted?
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
