Skip to main content

quote:
I will not answer your post in detail since it puts a lot of words into my mouth. I do not object to service. I do not object to protecting my woman or myself.


You must object to the above since you reject "control". Is there a way to protect and serve outside of control?

Is there?

quote:
I do object to giving lip service or intellectual assent to a number of religious doctrines which have nothing directly to do with service, protection, or unity. For example,

12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims


I am a Fruit Of Islam serving in the Nation Of Islam. I cannot speak for other faiths, but I am certain that the NOI's doctrine is premised upon service, protection, and unity, among other things.

What does Master Fard Muhammad have to do with this?

quote:
I just believe it absurd and even suicidal (from a group perspective) to rush into these religious groups and demand everyone else believe this stuff too or else they're unclean, or unworthy, or not as evolved or something.



I agree.

Fortunately, the NOI makes no such claims.



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
Agreed HB -

People, please defend your position without setting up strawman arguments.

What is wrong with HB's statements. How did NOI, UNOI, and the Five Percent Nation come to be? Disagreement in the methodology of acheiving a common goal. Unless you consider one or more of the following: Minister Farrakhan, Solomon (Royall), AND Clarence 13X (RIP) to be wrong, why challenge HonestBrother for having a different take?

The concepts of service, unity, & protection may be used by a social or religious group, but such organizations are not the sole custodians of such concepts.


The idea here is that these groups promote service, unity and protection, and therefore should be applauded, not mocked.

if you do not believe in the doctrine, fine, however, there is no wrong in respecting the good which has come from these groups.

Honest Brother seems to promote the idea that we as the children of slavery should reject organization since being united and organized would mean being controlled in some way.

If I can serve alone, can I not serve with 100 others of like mind? How about 10,000 others? Is there something wrong with organizing such a force once it is assembled?



Kai
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
quote:
I do object to giving lip service or intellectual assent to a number of religious doctrines which have nothing directly to do with service, protection, or unity. For example,

12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited "Messiah" of the Christians and the "Mahdi" of the Muslims


I am a Fruit Of Islam serving in the Nation Of Islam. I cannot speak for other faiths, but I am certain that the NOI's doctrine is premised upon service, protection, and unity, among other things.

What does Master Fard Muhammad have to do with this?


Yes. NOI may be premised on service, protection, and unity AMONG OTHER IDEAS. Are you going to tell me that NO other ideas are involved?

And as for Fard Muhammad: Can't you friggin read???. One of the ideas in addition to service, protection, and unity is that this man is God. And that's from the official NOI website.
quote:

The idea here is that these groups promote service, unity and protection, and therefore should be applauded, not mocked.


But service, unity, and protection at any cost isn't worth a farthing.

Fascists promote service, unity, and protection among themselves...

Yes I do acknowledge the good. In fact, I've worked with members of NOI... my critique is more complex than you acknowledge and I'm tiring of your silly verbal games...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
I have read on UNOI thayfen & virtue - I wasn't looking for a primer from either of you - just further elaboration on earlier statements.
My opinion is a primer for those that do not know....... I choose to give factual information as much as I can or direct one to where they can find it..... this is how I respond....
quote:
Too many people make matters of faith untouchable in critical discussion.
Agreed..... that's why this forum where so many people feel free to post whatever is on their minds regarding whatever subject they choose to wish, typically in the best manner, is such a great resource..... hmmm.. and many here tend to use it......
quote:
If anyone here is too sensitive to participate in this portion of the discussion, he/she can willingly bow out. All opinions are welcome.
Thank you.... this is a statement I feel many here are aware of ....... but sometimes may forget that we have the right to give our opinion or bow out if we are sensitive...... where would we be without your being here to remind us....... however, it is my humble opinion that many here already adhere to such a philosophy......

virtue- Do you think this:
quote:
all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....

is a fair statement? yes....
quote:
Are you suggesting that UNOI (or similiar groups) is the only way to acquire "structure or an accountable moral environment"?
No...

quote:
Also, this submission to structure seems contrary to the notion of a god creating whatever he desires. Please reconcile the discrepancy for me?
I do not see a discrepancy..... could you please elaborate on the discrepancy you see.... perhaps I can better answer your question... Smile


Peace,
Virtue
When I read the exchange last night - HB & thayfen were withdrawing from the discussion because of this:

quote:
Okay....

I do not mean to offend you...

You were attacking an institution I hold dear....

I try not to attack anyone or put them on the spot regarding their beliefs or things that they hold dear....

I would not....

Please let's not continue to argue...

This is why I made the statement I did - IMO, this was an appeal to emotion to shut down the road the discussion went down. I would still respectfully maintain that the uncomfortable parties should withdraw from a discussion rather than attempt to shut it down. Just my opinion - we can move past that.

quote:
Originally posted by virtue:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Why does it seem that all of our women (or a goodly portion of them) are looking to these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations (whether Christian or Islamic matters not to me) which are basically throwbacks to bygone eras?

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


In the context of HB's post, you set up a dichotomy. Women who want structure & moral accountability (in the context of the groups described by HB) or women who do not desire structure & moral environments. These are not the only possibilities, so framing the issue as either/or is not intellectually honest IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Also, this submission to structure seems contrary to the notion of a god creating whatever he desires. Please reconcile the discrepancy for me?
I do not see a discrepancy..... could you please elaborate on the discrepancy you see.... perhaps I can better answer your question... Smile


Peace,
Virtue


I'll rephrase, then leave it be if the question is still unclear:

How can a man be a "god, creating whatever he desires" if he is following the structure created by another man? Elsewhere, you commented on the corporate world and the law of nation/state and that a man following the structure of these was essentially a "renter". How is the man following Min. W. Fard or Royall not a "renter as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
quote:
I will not answer your post in detail since it puts a lot of words into my mouth. I do not object to service. I do not object to protecting my woman or myself.


You must object to the above since you reject "control". Is there a way to protect and serve outside of control?

Is there?


Since I'm tired of you asking the same dumb question repeatedly I'll repost:

quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
As descendants of slave we must learn to be free, how to exercise our will, or to not execise our will, to strive for a goal, or not strive for a goal - in short, how to control ourselves - and how to freely choose our destiny...


This sounds like a "god" to me....
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
When I read the exchange last night - HB & thayfen were withdrawing from the discussion because of this:

quote:
Okay....

I do not mean to offend you...

You were attacking an institution I hold dear....

I try not to attack anyone or put them on the spot regarding their beliefs or things that they hold dear....

I would not....

Please let's not continue to argue...

This is why I made the statement I did - IMO, this was an appeal to emotion to shut down the road the discussion went down. I would still respectfully maintain that the uncomfortable parties should withdraw from a discussion rather than attempt to shut it down. Just my opinion - we can move past that. Wow... I didn't realize you were so in tune with my intentions that you could speak for me....

Nice...

Well, dear Brother.... since you insist on making that a point....

That was an attempt not to shut the conversational topic down.... it was an attempt to shut down the emotional climax that was about to happen and I didn't know how that would turn out..... so instead of speaking to the emotional build up.... I spoke "around" it......

That was my intention.....

I have no problems with the topic...... except that the topic really doesn't belong here.... if we are going to debate about the validity or opinions regarding the beliefs of one's institution then we really should take it to the religion forum..... IMHO....


quote:
Originally posted by virtue:

Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Why does it seem that all of our women (or a goodly portion of them) are looking to these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations (whether Christian or Islamic matters not to me) which are basically throwbacks to bygone eras?

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


In the context of HB's post, you set up a dichotomy. Women who want structure & moral accountability (in the context of the groups described by HB) or women who do not desire structure & moral environments. These are not the only possibilities, so framing the issue as either/or is not intellectually honest IMO.
No it wasnt.....

It was a very simple response.......

HB generalized.... I offered not an either or alternative.... just an alternative....

Just my opinion..... but perhaps you're reading way too much into what you think are my intentions.......

If someone says all apples are green.... and I say well there's always the red ones.... that's not a hard fast either or situation..... just an option..... there should be no implied cut off.... unless you make it so..... one may not know that there are yellow apples... but the response is not cutting off that possibility... just not addressing it....


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Also, this submission to structure seems contrary to the notion of a god creating whatever he desires. Please reconcile the discrepancy for me?
I do not see a discrepancy..... could you please elaborate on the discrepancy you see.... perhaps I can better answer your question... Smile


Peace,
Virtue


I'll rephrase, then leave it be if the question is still unclear:

How can a man be a "god, creating whatever he desires" if he is following the structure created by another man? Elsewhere, you commented on the corporate world and the law of nation/state and that a man following the structure of these was essentially a "renter". How is the man following Min. W. Fard or Royall not a "renter as well?
My intention here was not general..... it was specific type of relationship.....

ummm..... Man whose culture has systemically tried to break the Black Male down to nothing for centuries.... almost since his own time has recorded him on the planet....

I was simply saying...... this man rules.... and many are comfortable with it... because they see a place for themselves here.....

Its this type of thinking that is a little distateful.... for what my definition of what a man should be.......

You are comparing apples and oranges.....

In other words.... Let's take hypothetical "Malik" whose been harrassed and beat up consistently by a bully ever since he entered high school....... Malik used to be popular but allowed the bully to mess up his reputation and his standing..... now Malik is no longer looked up to.... he's pitied and tolerated at best.... but always having to cow tow to the bully who stripped him of his standing...... and his dignity....

The bully doesn't stop.... he pesters him subtley and occasion will leave him alone when he's tired..... and even on some occassions will even allow him to hang out with the new popular crowd....

Something inside Malik feels degraded hanging out with him...... although in the present climate he may feel he has no choice.....

"Malik's" relationship with the bully at school is different from his relatiionship with the man who helped him learn how to fight......


the person on the outside looking in....

may look at Malik and think this is nothing more than making quick peace on the playground.... offering the bully an olive branch if you will...... and not see the other implications of this.....

or one can look at Malik and see that his manhood is at stake..... and he needs to fight for deeper reasons.....

or one can expend and enormous amount of energy trying to "talk" to the bully

or one can realize the bully is not going to change at this moment..... and will stomp poor Malik if he doesn't get enough courage to stand up for himself..... by himself.....

one should be able to recognize the difference unless he identifies too much with the bully.....

perhaps because he's gained too much benefit from hanging around the bully and doesn't want it to end or doesn't see how the ruling popularity could change into his favor.....or doesn't see himself in that position.... just doesn't see it.... too blinded by the "benefits".....

So blinded he forgets that Malik is his brother... and he too could feel the same amount of pressure if he stood up for himself....

Just doesn't want to.... too much pain involved.... not worth it.... even for dignity's sake....

JMHO.....



Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Why does it seem that all of our women (or a goodly portion of them) are looking to these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations (whether Christian or Islamic matters not to me) which are basically throwbacks to bygone eras?


HB generalized.... I offered not an either or alternative.... just an alternative....


Not to start anything, but for the record, I did not generalize... I very clearly wrote "all of our women (or a goodly portion of them)"

I think the statement is absolutely true as it stands. Perhaps the following is a purely subjective judgement on my part, but from where I stand too many of our people (male and female) are into to "these strict, authoritarian (and paternalistic) religious organizations."

And it's no secret but black women are the most Jesus praising group of women in the country.

Generalizations? What generalizations?
quote:

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


And I will add, so that there is no doubt, that given my initial statement: OF COURSE, I favor a middle ground where people want accountable moral environments BUT take responsibility themselves for creating them.

One doesn't need to be a member of a religious organization to either desire or have an 'accountable moral environment.'
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:

all? .... there are plenty of women left that do not want structure or an accountable moral environment.....


And I will add so that there is no doubt, that given my initial statement: OF COURSE, I favor a middle ground where people want accountable moral environments BUT take responsibility themselves for creating them.

One doesn't need to be a member of a religious organization to either desire or have an 'accountable moral environment.'
Okay....


Peace,
Virtue
quote:
Yes. NOI may be premised on service, protection, and unity AMONG OTHER IDEAS. Are you going to tell me that NO other ideas are involved?


Baby steps....Definitely baby steps...

Okay c'mon...

Your gripe was not against ideology, it was against "systems of control". Your statements indicated a broad indictment of all institutions which exercises control over it's members.

You specifically indicated in your argument that we should be self governed.

I have raised the issue of unity to counter some of what you asserted.

Do not get me wrong, I am for self governance in most instances, however, I am also a man who understands the need for unity. Further, I understand that the mechanics of unity include allowing others to have some say over how I will live. I consent to being governed in such systems of control.

If you are saying that you are for control, however, not when it requires you to join on to others who do not share your ideas, then fine...You should say that...Because thus far...You sound kinda Loopy...

quote:
And as for Fard Muhammad: Can't you friggin read???. One of the ideas in addition to service, protection, and unity is that this man is God. And that's from the official NOI website]

Is this suppose to be some explosive revelation?

Are you shocked by the claim that God is a man? Perhaps you should do a little research on the history of Anthropomorphism, and God, before you try and shock us. Perhaps the idea of God being a man is not so strange after all....


Careful sonny....



The Saracen Knight

Kai
This is not a religion debate - it so happened that Rowe mentioned men on "another level" being able to avoid women that may suffer from cognitive dissonance. The phrase suggests a superiority over other men (remember - I'm trying to "unload" these loaded phrases). When I inquired about what makes these men superior and their common traits, she mentioned UNOI. So IMO, the discussion of strict, authoritarian religious groups (in HB's words) in relation to what Black women want from Black men is relevant. There is a non-congruence between the desire to have your man dress & behave like Europeans (see Rowe's many comments on mulitple threads about things White men wear & do that brothers should adopt) & the type of man she described in this thread. I did not issue any attacks, I asked questions that were on my mind.

Perhaps you should ask Kai & HB if they are debating religion away from the context of this thread.

At any rate, thanks for your attempts to help me improve my understanding...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
Originally posted by RadioRaheem:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
I'm truly beginning to believe that your selection is also going to be strongly determined by where you live. Here in Kentucky there are plenty of single professional women but after you weed out the hyper-Christianized Bible thumping church goers you really don't want to have anything to do with the thug lovers who are left...

There really honest to God doesn't seem to be anything else here....


stay put bruh. DC area, Atlanta area, baltimore area, NYC area are pretty much all that same pool that you have there in KY. I hear rural South women maybe be better choices, maybe I'll look into that someday, but Big city women giveup


It's not that bad in the A - you have more variety in the pool.


true, ATL is cool, but I just hate dealing with nasty attitudes. It's a form of disrespect
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
Kai


You are full of hot air ... and seem to be deliberately misconstruing my posts.

You asked me what I had against unity, protection, and service. My response was nothing. But what I objected to were the other unrelated doctrines which have not a damned thing to do with unity, protection, or service. But which nevertheless demand assent from members of the organization and whose ONLY function is intellectual control...

You asked what I had against unity, protection, and service and my response was and remains that I embrace these ideas. What I do not embrace are the other doctrines. I gave as an example the doctrine about Fard Muhammad - the ONLY reason why I even brought it up: as an example of a debatable doctrine unrelated to unity, protection, or service...

I'm not debating the correctness of these doctrines - nor am I "shocked" by them ... but I'm merely questioning whether or not they are necessary to achieve unity, protection, and service...

My contention is that they are not... that they are in fact unnecessarily destructive of "unity" as there is always room for disagreement over such doctrines... AND MOREOVER THEY SERVE NO OTHER FUNCTION THAN CONTROL OVER MEMBERS... And even more than that, they needlessly discriminate against good brothers and sisters who have great contributions to make to the collective and whose only crime is to refuse to submit their minds to wacky (at the worst - at the best debatable) ideas ...

I will not accept "UNITY" at any cost... Since Fascists frequently value and are able to achieve "UNITY"...

You seem to be deliberately changing the subject... And you are ticking me off...

* I would appreciate if in your next response to me you demonstrate some reading comprehension * Thank you... hat
Last edited {1}
Peace...

quote:
You are full of hot air


Perhaps you feel blown away...I understand.

quote:
and seem to be deliberately misconstruing my posts.


No..I will allow you all of the credit for that one. Your points are incoherent and loosely tied.

quote:
You asked me what I had against unity, protection, and service. My response was nothing. But what I objected to were the other unrelated doctrines which have not a damned thing to do with unity, protection, or service. But which nevertheless demand assent from members of the organization and whose ONLY function is intellectual control...


Have you ever been a member of these "Loopy" organizations? If not, are you really qualified to make such a judgment?

Now let us be clear here...You were not limiting your comments to any particular organization, you were intentionally rejecting, any, and all organizations which seek to exercise any control over it's members.

Which is why you said the following:

quote:
in short, how to control ourselves - and how to freely choose our destiny...Anything else is inadequate.


Self control..anything else is inadequate...your thoughts...stand on them.

It is impossible to be completely self controlled, and united with anyone....You must surrender a portion of the control to others...

Your position is inherently flawed....You cannot be for a thing and simultaneously against it.

quote:
You asked what I had against unity, protection, and service and my response was and remains that I embrace these ideas. What I do not embrace are the other doctrines. I gave as an example the doctrine about Fard Muhammad - the ONLY reason why I even brought it up: as an example of a debatable doctrine unrelated to unity, protection, or service...


Dishonest at best.

This was never about any specific ideology. It was about the organization, and it's structure. Your complaint would be the same even if you accepted the majority of the ideology...You just don't like the idea of someone directing you. After all slavery is over..Right?

quote:
I'm not debating the correctness of these doctrines - nor am I "shocked" by them ...


Good...Of course you would not debate such a thing....


quote:
but I'm merely questioning whether or not they are necessary to achieve unity, protection, and service


More shuffling, and dishonesty....

This was not about the ideology....This was about mechanics. I don't give a damn what the ideology was..If it strictly required you to submit, and to "move out" when ordered...People like you wouldn't join...They watch from the sidelines, with their hands stuffed into their pockets.... Of course, they criticize, and speculate from the safety of the stands....While Men engage the opponent on the field.

quote:
My contention is that they are not... that they are in fact unnecessarily destructive of "unity" as there is always room for disagreement over such doctrines... AND MOREOVER THEY SERVE NO OTHER FUNCTION THAN CONTROL OVER MEMBERS... And even more than that, they needlessly discriminate against good brothers and sisters who have great contributions to make to the collective and whose only crime is to refuse to submit their minds to wacky (at the worst - at the best debatable) ideas


This is becoming silly. Are you a FOI, or a Marine or something like that? Have you been to prison?

What qualifies you to make such statements?

I came on this thread to correct you. You spoke out against "systems of control" which challenge absolute personal liberty. I came on the thread to say that while it sounds good to always be a self lord and master, sometimes you must join onto to others for a greater good, and while doing so you will have to surrender some personal space reserved for the all mighty internal monarch roaming around in your mind.

Your current rambling (I am for unity, just not with people who accept an ideology I reject) would be sufficient to help you dodge the foot in your mouth, however, it cannot, since you called any structure which removes your unencumbered right to self control- "inadequate".

quote:
I will not accept "UNITY" at any cost... Since Fascists frequently value and are able to achieve "UNITY"...



No sensible human being would accept unity at any price. The problem here is that in your world, you could only unite in a system which gave you all of the control...What kind of unity is that?

quote:
You seem to be deliberately changing the subject... And you are ticking me off...



Interesting....What happens when you get ticked off? Why don't you show me......

quote:
* I would appreciate if in your next response to me you demonstrate some reading comprehension * Thank you...


Oh I comprehend alright....Doesn't take much brain power, or imagination to know who and what you are....

Certain things are crystal....

Don't forget to get ticked off....It will amuse me.


The Saracen Knight


Kai
You've taken my initial statement - which I have I have subsequently qualified and clarified - and based your ENTIRE reading of my posts on the most extreme silliest interpretation (reductio ad absurdam) of it...

YES I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF ONE OF THESE "LOOPY ORGANIZATIONS" ... AND I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE BEGINS TO QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF OFFICIAL TEACHINGS...

I've also been a faculty member of a University (HonestBrother Ph.D. here) and I've seen the socially/politically regressive consequences of our people giving greater creedence to so-called religious leaders than they do to educators

I've been on both sides and I think that on the whole, these organizations are currently doing our people more harm than good...
Last edited {1}
quote:
If it strictly required you to submit, and to "move out" when ordered...People like you wouldn't join...They watch from the sidelines, with their hands stuffed into their pockets.... Of course, they criticize, and speculate from the safety of the stands....While Men engage the opponent on the field.



You do not know me nor do you know the battles I've waged... MEN??? People like you? More like cannon fodder....GELDING...

You sound like a FASCIST to me... Roll Eyes
Last edited {1}
I am an educator. I am a scientist. My job is to teach my students to think clearly and logically about fact.

Instead I deal with people - OUR people - whose minds are tied down with USELESS doctrines - young people with so much promise and talent talking about the Book of Revelation - End Times - The END OF THE WORLD - religious mythology - poppycock - as if it were fact - when in fact it's a waste of mental energy.
OK... I'll be honest here ... I don't deal with our people ... not to the extent I'd like ... Inspite of the fact that I teach at an urban university in a city with a large black population, I can go a few semesters WITHOUT a single black face in my classes...

Because by the time they get to my level, their minds are already ruined for math and science...

So yes... In this time in which we should be moving forward ... advancing the life of the mind ... building and enriching our culture and communities ... YES we're submitting to systems of control instead ... And I was * very * specific in listing the systems I had a problem with - prison, the military, and religion.

We got MORE RELIGION than any other people in the country AND MORE problems... How the HELL do you explain that?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by thayfen:
I've dealt with these people for over thirty years. They are blosed-minded, dictatorial, Biased (Racists), egomaniacal and mentally myopic. Sister Rowe is looking down the UNOI path. You can keep your UNOI.


I don't ever remember claiming a UNOI path. In fact, at present, I'm not affiliated with any religious organization. Brother Ddouble asked me about the group of men that I know who never complain about dating trife women or women desiring thugs, and these are men who fit this description. Again, although I cannot identify with every aspect of the UNOI Movement, I do respect the people representing this movement for making collective, consistent, and EFFECTIVE contributions to our community, for representing our community well, and for acknowledging the importance of self-discipline and Black self-sufficiency. Considering the growing problems that we have in our communities, most of which emanates from a lack of control over ourselves, our minds, our decisions, and our communities, I for one am eternally grateful for whatever positive solutions that emerge from our community, especially if it directly benefits US.
Rowe, as you know, I love u and all but my biggest pet peeve is wrongful information especially medical ones!


quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
I disagree. Natural meat eaters eat flesh raw..... Accordingly, natural meat eaters have claws, sharp teeth, sweat through the mouth, have a short intenstine which is two thirds the length of their bodies (humans are 30 ft. long), their jaws move up and down only, and the stomach can digest hair. Humans lack all of these natural meat eating habits and attributes.


First of all, the ability to eat raw meat versus cook meat does not provide evidence that humans are not meant to be meat-eaters. It just implies that we as a more developed and TOOL-using species in conjunction with our opposable thumbs afforded us the ability to develop the science (and art) of cooking. I agree that true carnivores have a much shorter intestine than we do, but on the other hand we definitely do not have the four stomachs that true herbivores have. Besides, our dentition is a cross between the two extremes as characteristic of an omnivore. As the acid in the stomach, trust me, our acid is just as strong as theirs....the hydrochloric acid in our stomach has a pH of 2 or less..to you chemistry nerds who know....that will dissolve an iron nail easily and talk less or bone or hair. digested food usually does not stay in the body for longer than 24 hours, not 3 days.


quote:

Furthermore, the human intestinal tract causes meat to stay in the body for up to 3 days. This causes toxins to be aborbed in the body creating diseases, while the natural meat eater's raw-flesh diet allows meat to leave quickly (1 day or less). In addition, flesh eating increases the workload of the kidneys and the liver. Consequently, this decreases man's ability to biochemically protect himself. Aside from this, animals secrete adrenaline into their bodies as a reaction to the fear caused by the slaughterhouse environment. This adrenaline poisons the flesh and creates toxins. Lastly, many types of diseases are transmitted by dead animals. The disease of Salmonella poisoning causes symptoms which resemble "colds," "flus," and "viruses." These symptoms are misdiagnosed and treated with "cold" medicines.......




Okay, now why adrenaline now a toxin....it is a naturally occuring compound in our body....it is one of the main stress hormones the body makes to control the flight-or-fight response...I strongly disagree that it is a toxin as suggested. Besides anything can be a toxin if in excess. As for Salmonella poisoning via contaminated meat consumption, one would have to be a really bad clinician to confuse the really bad loose to watery diarrhea, fever and severe abdominal pain with the common cold.....I don't see the resemblence between the two.

quote:
There are of course many other health risks associated with eating meat, but just considering the information that we have discussed thus far, I would say that people who adhere to limited or meat-abstaining diets are indeed much healthier, for a myriad of reasons, than those who do not. They are also a lot less susceptible to premature death compared to non-meat eaters.

[QUOTE] it is mistake to assume that eating meat and dairy will provide all of the nutrients your body needs. Even meat and dairy consumers suffer from vitamin deficiency. This is why nutritionists recommend that both vegans and meat-eaters integrate supplements into their diets. Vitamins are given the name of vitamins because they are considered "vital to life." Vitamins both energize and minerally stablize the body. For these reasons, it is important to take vitamins, regardless of your dietary status. Dairy products are especially unsafe[/b]..


It is true that not all vitamins are found in animal products but the same is true for plant-based material as well....vitamin B12 is only found in animal based foods..Vitamin B12 is an important co-factor needed in the production of DNA as well as the insulating shealth that surrounds our nerves to ensure proper transmission of signals back and forth. A lack of Vitamin B12 leads to diseases in the nerve as well as dementia and anemia. This is usually seen in strict vegans.
As for the safety of plant-based foods, as these are not regulated, how do we know that these are trully safe...are we sure that there are no fungal spores or bacterial spores on the plant material especially after using organic manure? Time will tell...
quote:
Originally posted by folobatuyi:
Rowe, as you know, I love u he biggest pet peeve is wrongful information especially medical ones!


Brother, I love u too, but the biggest pet peeve that I have is when people mistakingly label this kind of information as "wrongful" simply because it is information that is not commonly accepted by the medical profession or Western science, and for a good reason. This is the kind of information that keeps people from relying on medications and doctors for the rest of their lives. One point that we do agree on is that what I've offered thus far is definitely not medical advice, but life-givng advice. Medical advice is given to turn people into "patients," who are forever reliant upon doctors for the maintenace of their health, like a junkie or an addict. Life-giving advice, however, is given to empower people by making them responsible and accountable for the way they take care of bodies.

quote:
It just implies that we as a more developed and TOOL-using species in conjunction with our opposable thumbs afforded us the ability to develop the science (and art) of cooking.


The cooked food diet is the single most destructive diet. Compared to raw foods, cooked food lacks nutritional value and enzymes. Consequently, the endocrine glands try to compensate for enzyme-lacking food. The endoctrine gland chain becomes overstimulated which results in large increases in body weight. Additionally, cooked food causes a rise in organ temperature. The constant demand on digestive organs to try to metabolize cooked foods and drugs (which are also cooked) causes thermal fatigue. This indicates that the organs are getting weaker as they are getting larger. The United Nations World Health Organization has compiled data which indicates that 97 percent of primary cancers start at thermal fatigue organs such as the genitals due to cooked and OVERCOOKED food. Many African-Americans like to cook their foods literally to death, particularly their greens, not realizing that they are cooking the nutritional value right out of their foods. Further, most people are unaware about the risks of food combining. For example, animal flesh requires an acid for digestion. These acids are destroyed by carbohydrates and fruits. Subsequently, the animal flesh is not properly digested and the carbohydrates (starches) are not properly digested, which is why you should never mix starches with meat, yet how many times have we seen people at family gatherings eating barbecue ribs with macaroni and cheese. Also, you should never mix sugars (honey, molasses, etc.) with starches. The sugar burns quicker than the starches. The heat the sugars generate causes the starches to putrefy (rot) before they can be properly digested.

quote:
Digested food usually does not stay in the body for longer than 24 hours, not 3 days.


A 24 hour digestion period is possible under normal cirumstances, but considering the typical American diet, it's not uncommon for people to go more than three days without having a bowel movement, leaving rotting food to remain in the stomach. Listening to a radio program, one guy recently called in to tell a popular health program's host that he hadn't had a bowel movement in a week! So in your explanation, you're completely ignoring the American public's health ignorance and regular eating habits.

quote:
As for the safety of plant-based foods, as these are not regulated, how do we know that these are trully safe...are we sure that there are no fungal spores or bacterial spores on the plant material especially after using organic manure? Time will tell...


Unfortunately, considering American's high fat/meat and low vegatable diet, time is already telling us about the dangers of that kind of diet.
Last edited {1}
So that no one else (save the illiterate) will be tempted to again take my statements OUT OF CONTEXT, I'll repost it: I was very specific in my original post about which "systems of control" I was referring to (prisons, the military, and conservative religion) and that statement did NOT constitute an argument for unconditional individual freedom...

quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
It disturbs me that on every side I see * systems of control * on the rise: systems meant to keep us under control: whether that be the prison industrial complex, the military industrial complex, or these loopy religious movements: it's the same thing...

And what's much worse is that we're willingly running into the arms of those same systems...

Even if one resists - as I do - to make matters worse, our own women are demanding we submit to this control in some form or other...

As descendants of slave we must learn to be free, how to exercise our will, or to not execise our will, to strive for a goal, or not strive for a goal - in short, how to control ourselves - and how to freely choose our destiny...

Anything else is inadequate.

Just MHO


Anyone who has a problem with this IS part of the problem IMHO...

quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
I came on this thread to correct you. You spoke out against "systems of control" which challenge absolute personal liberty. I came on the thread to say that while it sounds good to always be a self lord and master, sometimes you must join onto to others for a greater good


Before you come in "correcting" people, YOU SHOULD FIRST LEARN TO READ. There are many ways of joining together for a greater good. The one way - the only way - I specifically rejected was the one that requires me to leave my mind at the door and sign off on questionable religious beliefs - no further questions allowed... I said NOTHING whatsoever about "absolute personal liberty." That was of your imagining.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Kai:
Peace...

Honest Brother, Just leave it alone. Move on with your life...My goal was acheived...Get over it.


Kai


* Bitch *, you achieved nothing but making an ass of yourself...

I've never in my life seen someone win a debate by simply declaring they won... You achieved nothing....You've wasted your breath this whole time addressing a point I did NOT even make or intend...

As I said before you're full of hot air and I know this by the putrid odor I smell coming from your direction....

"Foe Hammer"?????, "Saracen Knight"?????

ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION.....

Stop playing so many video games! And use spell check: A-C-H-I-E-V-E-D Roll Eyes
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×