Adam, I hope you didn't think I was calling you anti-religious. I don't know
you.  I simply said that I've seen more than one anti-religious remark.

My take on Christianity is this: Jesus said the two most important things
are: love G-d and love your neighbor as yourself. Corinthians 13 has been
overdone and humdrummed to death at weddings, but it is a good exposition on
love. I believe that's a pretty darn good way to live, and I try to remember
it. I fail quite - too - often, but I try.

I used to get into apologetics and debate, but too often that sort of thing
devolves into a completely petty waste of time. Intolerant fundies of every
stripe abound - religious and not. That has been my experience in church and
in science, in politics and...well, you get my point. It has been my
observation that in a discussion the person who thinks they have the most
answers often has the least worth listening to. Especially if they request
or demand silence from others. (Of course, then I have to be careful not to
judge the judgmental and find myself being a judgmental hypocrite! LOL)

I'm not sure I see why you would consider someone an enemy (or maybe that's
a stronger word to me than to you?) because you don't agree with the way
they choose to view spiritual matters. But of course I totally agree that
you have every right to say about that person, "Let him be anathema!"

I prefer a Rodneykingish approach to life. And as I said, I only joined the
discussion because it was about food and agriculture. I wasn't suggesting
that anyone else should see the texts in any particular light (which is why
I asked questions) and I wasn't feeling particularly religious or, to use
your word, dogmatic about it myself.

We could have had a similar discussion about Goldilocks and the Three Bears
for all I care. "Now, would the porridge act the same in a human body if it
was too hot, too cold or just right?"

Does a bear eat porridge in the woods?  :)

Peace, and good night,

Anne




-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 12:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paleo is in the you-know-what too!

Tom and Anne Donlon wrote:

>Adam,
>
>I have seen more than one anti-religious remark since I joined this list.
>Since no one objected, I happily assumed that this was a rare group in
which
>people allowed others to have differing opinions without necessarily
needing
>to point that out.
>
>Therefore I thought it'd be OK to discuss food and agriculture as mentioned
>in texts that are thousands of years old and considered sacred by a vast
>number of the earth's inhabitants in several religions.
>
>All the best in non-proselytizing imperfect paleoness :)
>
>Anne
>
>
I'm not really anti-religion. That's too broad. I may be somewhat
anti-Christian, but really it's more anti-dogma. If you are one of those
folks who believes that there is no need to search for answers, because
the answers are all right here, then you and I *are* enemies.

The Torah was not meant to be taken as a literal description of the way
things were 10,000 or so years ago. It is a synopsis of a whole lot of
history. It is literally filled with abstractions. People who try to
take it as a verbatim account of the way things were need their heads
examined. In the original Hebrew it is tough enough to understand
exactly what is being described. Then you get this hillbilly Gaul king
who was inspired by a pilgrimage to Rome, and he comes sweeping around
Europe browbeating everyone with his under-educated version.

Very little has changed since then. The version you are reading is an
unispired translation that is really more of an interpretation. And it's
an interpretation by someone who buys all the dogma unquestioningly and
doesn't understand the literary devices. And you get the full benefits
of his ignorance. BTW, the "Old Testament" was written in Hebrew. The
New was written in Latin and Greek and NOT in Aramaic. The only texts in
Aramaic are parts of the Gnostic gospels and other scriptures that
didn't make the official cut (For example, the books of Thomas and Mary
Magdelene, both of which were considered important by the Gnostics, are
originally in Aramaic.) There are a few Aramaic words here and there,
but there isn't as much as a full sentence anywhere.

Also, BTW, Gnosticism is a beautiful religion. So are some forms of
Judaism (NOT Orthodox  Judaism which is fully possessed of the
fundamental dogmatism I object to.) It is really the fundamentalist,
dogmatic Christianity that I object to. And, if you think you can get
serious dietary advice from Genesis you'd have to be towing that line
pretty hard.

As far as Paleo, and how far off topic we are IMNSHO, the works we are
discussing were written by advanced agricultural societies. They are
tens of thousands of years out of scope, at best.

Thanks,
Adam