In a message dated 7/9/99 7:16:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

>
>  Some people today eat certain things or don't eat them, based on the
> teachings
>  of the religion they adhere to.
>

Obviously. But is it paleo?


>  The original thread starter, who like all thread starters on the Internet,
> has
>  vanished :-), wanted help on being paleo while still adhering to the
dietary
>  proscriptions of his religion.

This is what I am referring to.  Using christianity as an example, you get
different stories about what to eat depending on which testament you read.
This may not be the case with every religion (I am not a theologian by any
stretch of the imagination) but even buddhism, that doesn't change with the
society, isn't paleo.  The food mentioned in the bible is food eaten during
*their* present time, again, not exclusively paleo, very neolithic.
If you're going to follow it, new testament quotes Jesus
as saying that it doesn't matter what goes into your body it's what goes into
your soul that matters. So does the food affect us or not?  Not for spiritual
purposes I suppose.

>
>  None of this should be hard to keep track of - since it is all in the
> Subject
>  header ! :-)
>

I think we have all seen subject headers that were inaccurate. And I
don't believe that every person that writes a comment goes back to the
original thread before doing so.  That would be ridiculous. Our comments
are responses to the posts in front of us, not those behind us.


>  So, when you said:
>
>  "Were there any modern religions 40,000 years ago?
>  Why do people on a PALEOFOOD list insist on bringing
>  in modern deities/gods?  Seems to me they are as
>  neolithic as grain. "
>
>  the answer is because that was what the ORIGINAL question in the thread was
>  about.
>

That's not an answer to my question though.  I notice you didn't answer any of
the other questions I posed in my last post either. I am eagerly awaiting
anyone's
response to those.

>  PS  You said "I do not believe that god and evolution are mutually
exclusive.
> "
>  and in fact the Pope has said just that (that they are not mutually
> exclusive).
>

I could be facitious and say 'great minds think alike', but I have zero in
common with the pope.  And he doesn't know for a fact either. He's just a
very
intelligent man that sees the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution,
but maintains his belief in god, even without overwhelming evidence. And
this is fine. Whatever makes him happy is cool..8-)
>
>  --
>  Cheers,
>
>  Ken                         <*>
>  [log in to unmask]
>
>

I recognize that people will have their beliefs. And the more they believe
the harder it is to get them to see different. This applies no matter what
side one might be on.  My question simply is this... If man is looking at
an evolutionary diet to best suit his needs, why is he conferring with a
neolithic god? And if you believe that the word of god is *IT* for all
eternity
,,then why go to a paleo diet at all? Hasn't it been replaced by the most
recent perfect entity?

 Surely the *latest*  thing god said must be the *most* perfect for us....

No?

(Keeping in mind that god's word changes every few thousand years, at
least in scrupture. In reality it changes with the whim of the society or
leader of the time.  Nowadays it can change daily.)

Anna