Probiotics Archives

Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

[ Probiotics Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Sean on June 12, 2003 at 12:05:36:

Hi,

I recently had a chance to read the phMiracle book by Dr. Young. And after reading this book it brought up many questions as to the validity of his approach.

While Dr. Young doesnt seem to be as well known on this bb as Dr. Rubin and his Primal defense. There are some places where Dr. Young's products and approach are used almost exclusively.

The reason I wanted to compare these 2 approaches is that while they may appear quite similar at first there are vast differences to Dr. Rubin and Young's main philosophy around the 'causes' of dis-ease.

If you have read, Patient heal thyself; from Dr. Rubin and Dr. Youngs, PhMiracle; book you would get this main philosphy from each:

Dr. Rubin - attributes most disease processes to the lack of soil-organisms in modern man and thus attributing this fact to the cause of many disease processes. And this is where his main product primal defense 'fits' so nicely in the picture. Fills the gap of the soil-organisms.

Dr. Young - attributes most disease processes to the acidic producing diet that modern man has and his cure is by alkalizing the diet via certain foods and the famous super green drink and ph drops.

Now both doctors dont just recommend the one 'pill' cures it all approach; they both talk about total dietary changes including using their product(s).

The differences start to show up with their approach when you start to look at the exact diet recommendations of each.

Dr. Young: as previously stated Dr. Young Strongly suggests you eliminate all acid producing foods. On one hand he suggests you eat a 80/20 or 70/30 ie alkaline/acidic ratio; on the other hand he suggests you be extremely careful about the types or acidic foods and how much you have.
-I cant remember the exact wording; (I dont have Dr. Youngs book in front of me-
but from what I remember Dr. Young specifically suggested you not take probiotics (ie primal defense) in this form. Dr. Young didnt state primal defense specifically but that is what I figure he was talking about from his sentence.
Also Dr. Young mentions that fermented foods are very acidic and very bad for you to eat. Also any meat is the same and Dr. Young only recommends you eat fish very rarely. Dr. Youngs main objective is for you to eat everything with a basic ph if you can and this includes the water you drink by using distilled or reverse osmosis water and adding special ph drops to it. To clairfy the probiotic approach of Dr. Young; if my memory serves me right Dr. Young did say probiotics are good just that his wording seemed to indicate they should be taken alone.

The main difference between Dr. Young and Rubin are:
1. Young says no feremented foods while Rubin suggests just the opposite; saying feremented foods are life savers providing necessary enzymes and probiotics.

2. Dr. Young Strongly suggests no meat and only on very rare occasions to eat fish. Dr. Rubin Suggests just to try to eat meat from healthy sources ie grazing cattle or goats etc ... In Dr. Rubins book he mentions a tribe in africa that ate mainly hunted meat and mentions the great health of this tribe. Also Dr. Rubin talks about on a few occasions about the eskimos and their great health; while from Dr. Youngs philosophy these people should be in abismal health from eating so much acidic food - ie meat.

3. Both give examples as to why their philosophy is right; although Dr. Rubin has more data and scientific numbers in his book.

Anyways ... the reason I am bringing all this to your attention is that fact that after studying various things on this bb and reading Dr. Rubin's book and various other books (healing power of whole foods etc) I thought I had a decent grasp on the 'proper' diet. Implementing it was a different story ;)

After I finished with Dr. Youngs book, I felt confused on if my approach was off and perhaps there was a better diet that I should look into.

Again while some things are shared between the 2 philosophies there are significant differences. Fermented foods, trying to eat all alkaline type foods (as described in Dr. Young's book) and eating no meat except for fish on occasion.

For those that havnt read Dr. Youngs book or dont know much about him; his perfect diet centers around basically being a pure vegitarian with eating mostly green foods. While eating some non vegitarian foods on occasion is ok; its strongly suggested you get right back to eating 'alkaline' foods.

Honestly I could care less who is right; weather acidic foods or lack of soil based organisms cause dis-ease.

Most people I know find it very difficult to be on a strict diet regimene and the people whom are usually willing to do so are usually suffereing from some kind of aliment.

What do you think about Dr. Young's approach and his philosophy about the cause of many disease conditions?

Has anyone tried Dr. Youngs approach?

I have some of Dr. Youngs super green powder here; and its similar to Perfect food from Dr. Rubin although; from my underestanding perfect food is partly digested while super-greens is not. Super greens has more grasses in it also.

a couple comments about Dr. Youngs book:

- Dr. Young mentions that man isnt made to be a meat eater; and that we are natual herbiavores; looking at our teeth and digestive track. Honestly I dont buy it. Goriallas are herbiavores and they have some sharp teeth; does this mean they arnt eating what they should be eating because they have sharp teeth?

- Dr. Young does bring up a interesting concept in his book about eating mostly vegtables and green ones at that. But for those whom arnt pure vegitagian I could see this to be quite a challenge for anyone to try to adjust their eating style to match that of a pure vegitarian.

let me know what you think

Sean



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Steve on June 12, 2003 at 13:14:04:

In Reply to: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sean on June 12, 2003 at 12:05:36:

Sean, What works for me may not work for you..You have to find out what works for you..One thing I do know is their is no " wonder pill ".. Takes a combination of different things..Steve

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by GG on June 12, 2003 at 21:19:49:

In Reply to: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sean on June 12, 2003 at 12:05:36:

I have tried diets similar to Dr. Young's and have found they wreak complete havoc with my biochemistry. Jordan Rubin's program on the other hand has done wonders for me. The approach of Dr Yound seems to be rather flawed as he has little or no studies proving his whole acid/alkaline theory. I would like to see some kind of study or strong biological evidence supporting his approach.

A diet which does not include animal products on a daily basis is suicide for alot of people. I almost killed myself on such a program. HY can also testify to the negative affects of such a diet. Animal products provide a whole food source of quality protein and fat soluble vitamins which can not be obtained from any other source. In addition, to my knowledge there is no well absrobed plant source of vitamin B12. Saturated fat is essentail to the diet and there are no plant sources of this nutrient. I would recommend you read the book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A Price.

When eating animal products source and preperation are paramount. Grass fed beef, raw cultured milk, and free range eggs can not be compared to their commom counterparts.

Although soil organism supplementation is a large part of Rubin's program, I beleive the most important part of it to be the diet. Avoiding all the refined processed poison in this world and consuming nutrient dense PROPERLY PREPARED foods are two of the most important aspects of natural healing. Garden of Life's whole food supplements are great healers but they can't replace a good diet.

There are many things which cause disease and they fall into a broad range of categories from nutrition to emotional well being. No one theory has a monopoly on the truth and each person must fine tune elements from a range of approaches to achieve truly optimal helath.



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 00:23:25:

In Reply to: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sean on June 12, 2003 at 12:05:36:

Nice job doing your homework on this. You put together a very nice comparison of these two philosophies. Both have their points, but I feel that Dr. Rubin's makes more sense from a philiological point of view, and practical application as well.

First, lactofermented foods are meant only to be taken in small amounts, mainly as condiments. This provides increased amounts of vitamins, minerals, enzymes, lactic acid, and probiotics. This is hardly acidic to the body.

Second, and this is something that you will not find studies on, but only COOKED meats are acidic to the body. Raw proteins do not do this. This is one reason why the Eskimos can eat a diet high in protein and fat and can stay disease-free. The raw foods do not cause acidity. Even overly cooked vegetables can cause acid build-up in the body. So, this is something that Dr. Young missed.

Third, we are not herbivores. There was already a long discussion on this so I am sure you can find info on that in the archives but surfice it to say, humans can digest plant and animal foods (but we digest animal foods more efficiently) so we are omnivores

Most health professionals that use acid/alkaline as a basis for thier diets don't take the above into consideration. What ends up happening? We end up swearing off perfectly healthy foods due to some common misconseptions on acid/alkaline balance in the diet. Even a vegetarian can have acid build-up in the body if they eat primarily cooked vegetables. Unfortunately, the vegetarian will also have the additional challenge of meeting protein needs, B12 needs, and other nutrient needs that are created from a lack of animal foods in the diet. The balance of how much animal food to use is up to the individual, but I definitely wouldn't leave it out. So, only fear acid if you are going to eat lots of cooked foods, especially cooked meats and grains. Since grains can only be eaten cooked, they all cause acid build-up in the body (except sprouted grains because they are still raw). Most health "authorities" out there today recommend avoiding most meats and focusing on fish. They don't realize that cooking the meats creates the problems. Also, they don't realize that organic, grass fed meats contain a proper balance of omega 3 and 6 fats, less saturated fat, and CLA, a special fatty acid that helps protect against cancer. With the fish, one has to worry about mercury and other contaminants but you don't hear them preaching on that. Anyway, I hope that helps

-HY



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Maz on June 13, 2003 at 07:42:52:

In Reply to: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sean on June 12, 2003 at 12:05:36:

What a brilliant review!

I agree and understand why this frustrates you. It does me too, when you get two supposedly very eminent doctors/scientists or whatever and their approaches are completely opposite.

It makes me want to give the whole thing up sometimes and just eat what I fancy.

I have to say I think the Dr Young approach is drastic and wrong in my opinion. We were never meant to be vegetarian and I for one am much happier on organic meat. I did not know that cooked meat was bad. I could not eat raw meat so I will try to cook lightly in future.

Maz



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Steve on June 13, 2003 at 08:22:50:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 00:23:25:

HY, I just can't passed the eating of raw meat..What about tricknouses ( spelled wrong )? Also I think we are herbivores..You could live on just bananas..Nothing else..Could you live on just raw meat, nothing else? I know Eskimos..Aren't we all a little bit different and require the food that works for each one..Steve



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by marker on June 13, 2003 at 09:08:38:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Maz on June 13, 2003 at 07:42:52:

To complicate matters a lot more..... I have just finished reading a book titled "The Metabolic Typing Diet", by William L. Wolcott and Trish Fahey. I do not have the book in front of me, so I am working from memory. In this book Wolcott states that certain foods are neither acidic, nor alkaline, on their own accord. Your metabolic type dictates which foods are acidic, and which are alkaline. The same exact food, will produce a acidic reaction in one person, while producing an alkaline reaction in another. Likewise, the exact same foods will stimulate one aspect of a person's nervous system (either parasympathetic, or sympathetic), while the eaxact same food will have the opposite reaction in another (with a different metabolic type). This, according to his theory, is why the same diets work for some, while fail for others. Not only do you have to determine whether you are a fast, or slow oxidizer, but also whether you are sympathetic, or parasympathetic dominant. There are more classifications, tests, and concerns, but these are the most important (and the only ones I can remember offhand). I am not endorsing this theory, but this book was a great read.




thanks all for the responses and the helpful info

Posted by Sean on June 13, 2003 at 11:53:11:

In Reply to: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sean on June 12, 2003 at 12:05:36:

thanks all for the responses and the helpful info ...

You're right it is hard to figure things out in regards to diet with all these different philosophies floating around ie hunter/gatherer, alkaline/acidic, blood types, metabolic types, yeast/no yeast, personal allergies
and then you throw in your personally preferences and ability to stick with a particular diet and you have one tough cookie to figure out ;)

Sean

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Steve on June 13, 2003 at 12:35:35:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by marker on June 13, 2003 at 09:08:38:

marker, Did you take the test? Did it come with the book? I have ordered the book..Steve



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Sean on June 13, 2003 at 12:42:02:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 00:23:25:

HY,

thanks for your feedback ... I'm glad you are still posting on this bb; I find your help and guidence INvaluable and I am sure others here do also. I'm not sure what the dispute was previously (saw a message that you may not post here anymore).

I'll have to search for the info on the omnivore discussion; sounds interesting ...

you mention cooked meats as being only acidic; but I assume most people would and should cook their meats since they often taste better and to kill parasites and other critters.

Sean




Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by marker on June 13, 2003 at 14:04:15:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 13, 2003 at 12:35:35:

Steve,

Yes, there is a test in the book. I took the test, and the results came back as I had expected. I am a sympathetic dominant, fast-oxidizer. I do feel a hell of a lot better with more protein (eggs, meat, chicken), and the right type of fats in my diet. Basically the whole foods diet, but with the protein and fat cranked up (every meal averages 70% fats and protein to 30% carbs). It has to be the right types of protein, fats, and carbs though. That was not new, though. The test was simple for me because I truely am at one end of the spectrum. My mother, who read the book, got mixed results taking the test. She found an M.D. who specializes in metabolic typing, and is going to him for definitive answers (she is going today in fact). A person could probably find the right type of diet by listening to their body, but it can be a very tricky process for others (like my mom). Let me know what you think of it.

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 22:59:50:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sean on June 13, 2003 at 12:42:02:

Cooking meats denatures the proteins will makes them less aborbable. Most people DO cook their meats but eating it raw is far healthier. To understand the role of parasites in a raw meat diet, I would recommend that you read "A Recipe For Living Without Disease" by Aajonous Vonderplinz. It's too in-depth for me to discuss here.

-HY

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 23:03:38:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 13, 2003 at 08:22:50:

Could you live on just raw meat, nothing else?

Evidence suggests that this may be possible. A 1-year experiment testing an all meat diet on 2 doctors showed that not only did these doctors live on the all meat diet, they thrived. The study was not continued and none have followed in their steps, but there ARE cultures eating primarily meat and milk and thriving.

I see where you are trying to go with your example but if one were to eat primarily bananas, we would suffer terrible diabetes. Fruitarians often develop osteoporosis and other degenerative diseases due to a lack of protein. I do agree with you that one must find his/her own diet that works, but I don't think it can be argued that humans are omnivores. Humans have been eating meat since we appeared on Earth. We have evolved to process animal products. Thanks for your comments

-HY



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Sounder on June 13, 2003 at 23:18:59:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 23:03:38:

Hi HY
Did you really mean this or was it a mistake as I suspect?

"I don't think it can be argued that humans are omnivores"

be well,

Sounder




Comparing Dr. Young's (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) Archive in

Posted by Walt Stoll on June 14, 2003 at 06:20:25:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 00:23:25:

Thanks, HY.

Namaste`

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Steve on June 14, 2003 at 07:38:01:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 23:03:38:

HY, Since I don't believe man evolved ( I believe he was created ) let's agree to disagree..I respect your vast knowledge in the health field and can learn much from you, there are somethings I can't buy into..When man was created he ate only fruit and plants..Saying that, the earth was in a hole lot better shape than it is now..I think we need meat now to get protein..Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post..Steve



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Helping You on June 14, 2003 at 13:46:19:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 14, 2003 at 07:38:01:

Hi Steve,

I don't mean evolved in the sense of monkey to human. I mean evolved as in "adapated" to the food source.

-HY



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Helping You on June 14, 2003 at 13:47:47:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sounder on June 13, 2003 at 23:18:59:

No Mistake. Humans can process animal foods AND plant foods. This is a physiological fact. Thanks Sounder

-HY



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Sounder on June 14, 2003 at 14:05:45:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 14, 2003 at 13:47:47:

>>"I don't think it can be argued that humans are omnivores"<<

hehe OK HY,
The sentence doesn't really say that clearly, but yes, we are most likely natural omnivores.

Be well,

Sounder




Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Steve on June 14, 2003 at 15:08:50:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 14, 2003 at 13:46:19:

HY, Thanks for the clairfication..If nothing else we are adaptable..Steve

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by HY on June 15, 2003 at 00:49:18:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Sounder on June 14, 2003 at 14:05:45:

Sorry for the error. I did a lot of typing that night and made a mistake in the wording. I of course meant that we ARE omnivores. Thanks for pointing that out for me :-)

-HY

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Walt Stoll on June 15, 2003 at 06:51:33:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 14, 2003 at 07:38:01:

Steve,

How do you know that God did not decide to create man via evolution?

Walt



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by Steve on June 15, 2003 at 07:56:12:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Walt Stoll on June 15, 2003 at 06:51:33:

Walt, Because he states in Genesis 1:24 that man was created in God's likeness or image..and God did not evolve..Also Gen. 1:31 " God saw everything he made and it was very good " We are made to live forever..It's mankind that has messed himself and this planet up..Steve



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by reader on June 15, 2003 at 13:38:09:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 15, 2003 at 07:56:12:

all that's fine and all but, where did GOD come from then? this is something i never understood. and thus far, i have never been given a satisfactory answer. i am usually told *he has always been there*. says who? thanks



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by GG on June 15, 2003 at 14:32:27:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 14, 2003 at 07:38:01:

I too am a christain and believe that God created man, however this does not mean HY's diet is incompatible with my belief system. In the very beginning, man did eat only vegetable foods, however after the fall to sin the world became a much harsher and very different place. In a world of such stress it is very necessary to eat animal products as they supply a vast array of pre-made body building nutrients.

On a side note, the cultures studied by Weston Price who had the highest degree of mroal fitness were those that ate liberally of animal products.

Follow Ups:


The Evolution of God

Posted by cris on June 15, 2003 at 14:46:02:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 15, 2003 at 07:56:12:

How do you know God is not evolving? The Universe is unfolding and developing. Change appears to be built into it. Then Man in the image of God would also encompass change and development, not stasis.



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by R. on June 15, 2003 at 15:52:29:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by GG on June 12, 2003 at 21:19:49:

Saturated fat is essentail to the diet and there are no plant sources of this nutrient.

There sure are. Coconut is a great example. If memory serves me correctly, coconut oil is about 90+% saturated.

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by R. on June 15, 2003 at 16:18:46:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 00:23:25:

lactofermented foods are meant only to be taken in small amounts, mainly as condiments.

Koreans eat a lot of kimchi with each meal, but they are not known to be unusually ill. Masai drink up to 2 quarts of sour milk a day, and as you know, they are healthy. I wouldn't recommend taking what Nourishing Traditions says exactly as written. Remember that it was written for ignorant people who are used to refined foods.

I am skeptical about your statement that cooked foods are acidic, but raw ones aren't. And I don't really don't buy the overall Young's theory either. Most foods contain acids: protein is made of amino acids, fats are made of fatty acids, and we are made of protein and fats. The body has mechanism(s) to maintain needed pH level in various tissues, and if we consume everything the body needs (this also includes minerals, of course), this mechanism will work properly. Dr. Young's theory doesn't explain what happens in reality, IMO.

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by R. on June 15, 2003 at 16:23:22:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Helping You on June 13, 2003 at 23:03:38:

here ARE cultures eating primarily meat and milk and thriving

HY, every time you say that, you forget to mention blood. Unless you are talking about populations other than Masai who eat only meat and milk, you've got to be more precise because blood could actually be a very important element in Masai's diet.



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by R. on June 15, 2003 at 16:27:01:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Walt Stoll on June 15, 2003 at 06:51:33:

Very good point, Walt!

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by R. on June 15, 2003 at 16:41:06:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by Steve on June 15, 2003 at 07:56:12:

Because he states in Genesis 1:24...

It's not HE who states anything in Genesis, but a human who wrote the Bible. I'd think it would've been a lot easier and more efficient for God to print text of the Bible on some indestructible material instead of letting flawed humans transcribe his words, which have been changed since then. If you believe that some human could hear God's words, then let me tell you that God just told me to tell you that men are not herbivores.

But even if you were correct (which I don't believe), how do you know God didn't eat meat? He could've told you anything he thought you needed to know while feasting on meat 24 x 7. You are not privy to what God knows and does, are you?

We are made to live forever..It's mankind that has messed himself and this planet up

But this means that we are no longer the way God created us, and it's possible we are no longer herbivores, contrary to your belief. Let's be consistent in our reasoning.



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by Steve on June 15, 2003 at 20:42:18:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen posted by R. on June 15, 2003 at 16:41:06:

R, Yes men did write those words, but they were guided by God's Holy Spirit..If you do not believe, it's your right, as it is mine to believe..

Let's agree to disagree and stay friends..Steve



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by 4eva on June 16, 2003 at 01:40:54:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by reader on June 15, 2003 at 13:38:09:

well, reader, how about these two:

1. He has always been there.

2. He hasnt always been there.

Is that satisfactory?



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense)

Posted by 4eva on June 16, 2003 at 01:51:23:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defense) posted by 4eva on June 16, 2003 at 01:40:54:

Also, the finite mind cannot comprehend infinity and never having been created. How about WE have always been, but of course, not always in this form we are now in, and if we are made in the image of God, makes sense that he/she/it has also always been.
Hmm, I dont think that second part makes much sense now. lol
Well, because if as a soul, we were created that means we can one day be destroyed. But a soul/God can never be destroyed because we have always been.
Wow! I am impressed! :)

Follow Ups:


Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by Miss Bliss on June 16, 2003 at 01:58:50:

In Reply to: The Evolution of God posted by cris on June 15, 2003 at 14:46:02:

How do you know God is not evolving?

But then that would mean God is not perfect. I guess we have to define WHAT God means or is, and thats where things get dicey! :)



Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by thessa on June 16, 2003 at 09:11:46:

In Reply to: The Evolution of God posted by cris on June 15, 2003 at 14:46:02:

Amen cris.

If we exist as waves in the ocean called God, then our individual evolution (which seems to be apparent) would mean the evolution of God...



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by R. on June 16, 2003 at 12:24:51:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen posted by Steve on June 15, 2003 at 20:42:18:

Yes, let's stay friends, but what I said is what I could never understand. Religious people say they believe in the existence of God, the Bible, angels, etc., but someone in their life says they communicate with angels, God, and whom not, they are not believed. Why is that?

I've occasionally watched a movie called Touched by the (an?) Angel. In one of the episodes, they described exactly the situation. One of the angels (the prettier one) was in a court of law, and no one believed she was an angel. And she said, "You say you believe in existence of angels and God. But you won't believe when you see one!"

So, when I tell you that God had asked me to tell you that humans are not herbivores, you brush it off as something impossible.



Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by R. on June 16, 2003 at 12:28:10:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by Miss Bliss on June 16, 2003 at 01:58:50:

How about change instead of evolution? God could've changed since then and may have been eating meat for a long time.

Follow Ups:


Perfection

Posted by cris on June 16, 2003 at 14:17:44:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by Miss Bliss on June 16, 2003 at 01:58:50:

Who ever gave you the idea that change/development meant lack of perfection? The anti-entropic development of the Universe is perfection--a higher level of perfection. What is stasis, but a "snapshot" of something in motion. God might seem to be a snapshot to the short-sighted. But the snapshot is not God.

Follow Ups:


Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by Gregory on June 16, 2003 at 14:42:16:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by thessa on June 16, 2003 at 09:11:46:

What if we are not waves in the ocean called God? What if God just is, and we are growing to the point God is already at?

If your fingers, your hair, your eye "evolve" do you get spiritual "insights," or do you just get better fingers, hair, and eyes?

This is the problem of making God "one of us." God is so far comprehension or more accurately our understanding of what God is is so limited, that there can be no accurate measurement of our growth to God's "growth."

The idea is absurd.



Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by cris on June 16, 2003 at 20:40:15:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by Gregory on June 16, 2003 at 14:42:16:

Gregory, that is our job, as human beings,imago viva Dei,to strive to comprehend God. Evolution is not merely physical, but of the mind and soul, as well. Let us call it development.



Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by HY on June 17, 2003 at 00:07:14:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen posted by R. on June 15, 2003 at 16:23:22:

Sorry R. I won't forget the blood next time.

-HY

Follow Ups:


Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by thessa on June 17, 2003 at 01:39:09:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by Gregory on June 16, 2003 at 14:42:16:

This is the problem of making God "one of us."

I'm not saying God is "one of us", rather, we are "one of God".

According to the recent uncoveries in quantum physics (not to mention several spiritual traditions), the whole universe is connected on many different levels.

Your evolution and spiritual development affects mine. My everyday activities affect the universe via my local vibrations in the web matrix connecting everything in existence.

Why would "God" be outside that connection? How could God be unaffected by our growth? Yes, when my fingernails, eye, hair change (not even necessarily evolve), I gain much insight about the bigger picture of "me"...

our understanding of what God is is so limited
I just don't feel that way about my own understanding of "God". I think our agreement about what God is is what is limited.



Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by Gregory on June 17, 2003 at 08:36:33:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by thessa on June 17, 2003 at 01:39:09:

Be truthful Thessa. When is the last time (or first time or ANY time you have felt or otherwise acknowledged consciously) my evolution or the evolution of someone else for that matter?

When you can barely keep track of your own, can you really see someone else's? It's nice to think that you are connected, sounds very good spiritually, but come on, truthfully. I could disappear tomorrow, begin a life a crime, and you'd never know it.
Those "connections on many different levels" do not add up to practical, functioning links to other people, and do not affect individual spiritual growth, any more than you as a conscious being acknowledge the "evolution" or "change" of a single cell in your body.

Fact: Whole processes go on in your body without your awareness or input. You know when something goes wrong but I have very strong doubts that you are aware of the day-to-day cellular "universe" that is your body. You are the "God" of your body, but how much does it "understand" you and your purposes? How much does a single cell know about your desire to speed along on the highway? To get to the market before it closes?

You see? These things are incomprehensible. They have no meaning, just as our activities are meaningless to God.
Your activities are virtually meaningless to me. What you do over there in Italy means nothing to me here in the States.

No connection.

The Emperor has no clothes on.



Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by Gregory on June 17, 2003 at 08:43:45:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by cris on June 16, 2003 at 20:40:15:

Why is it our "job" to comprehend God? What sort of superior being makes it difficult for its creations to "comprehend" it?

Nope. Sorry. I won't buy that for a nickle.

Assuming there is someone or someone's traits you wish to emulate, it is not that difficult to find out about them and do what they do. You have context.

Do you have a context for God?

No.

When was the last time YOU were God & Master of all you surveyed?

Were you Master Of The Universe, say, last Thrusday?

cris Almighty maybe?




cris Almighty

Posted by cris on June 17, 2003 at 09:46:02:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by Gregory on June 17, 2003 at 08:43:45:

You didn't even notice the difference? And I thought my turn was going to be so unique.
Trouble is, the job of being the Almighty is so predictably predictable. To the extent that God can be understood by his actions, ie. the unfolding of the Universe, man can discover the lawful generating principles, and he can actually use these principles to change the Universe in ways that would not occur in his absence, in imitation of God, so to speak. Not like God, because man can generate no universal principles of his own, but able to discover and use those principles by which the universe unfolds.
I don't think it is a matter of God choosing to make himself easy to understand or not. To the extent that His works are complex, He is complex. He is the Universal. Man is a Particular. Can any one man in his lifetime, discover all the Universal Generating Principles by which the Universe unfolds? No. Can many men, through many generations of learning and building on the discoveries of those who went before, uncover all those principles generated by God? Probably not, but who knows. They can get ever closer, at least--the ever perfecting reflection of the Universal in the face of the Particular.

Follow Ups:


Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen

Posted by Steve on June 17, 2003 at 10:45:06:

In Reply to: Re: Comparing Dr. Young's philosophy (super greens) to Dr. Rubin's (primal defen posted by R. on June 16, 2003 at 12:24:51:

R, It's not impossible that God can talk to you because with God a things are possible..Adam and Eve were herbivores ( Bible shows no record of them eating meat ) However after the flood, God told Noah to eat all food ( bible record shows they ate meat )..I never brush you off R, I have learned from you and others on this board..But that doesn't mean I will follow the advice if I don't agree..Steve

Follow Ups:


Re: The Evolution of God

Posted by thessa on June 18, 2003 at 03:15:25:

In Reply to: Re: The Evolution of God posted by Gregory on June 17, 2003 at 08:36:33:

Why do I get the feeling you're being the devil's advocate here?

Be truthful Thessa. When is the last time (or first time or ANY time you have felt or otherwise acknowledged consciously) my evolution or the evolution of someone else for that matter?

Sorry G, but that was a bad example you pulled out. All it takes is intention to notice these things, and for one whose main goal is spiritual evolution, it's not that hard. In the case of me noticing you for example, you have to remember that I have been interacting with you and observing your posts for more than 2 years now. I HAVE consciously noticed your evolution, my evolution, the evolution of many people around me (even upon a first and only meeting). Now I would like to expand in this area by noticing the evolution of those that have not entered my conscious awareness. For example, your grocer. Since I haven't met him or her, I tend not to focus on this person's contribution to the matrix. But that doesn't mean I can't.

When you can barely keep track of your own, can you really see someone else's?
You assume that I can barely keep track of my own, which isn't true. But I would agree that most people barely keep track of their own, not for inability, but for unattention and lack of desire to do so.
Not to mention the fact that we are not only talking about someone else's so-called evolution. We are also talking about "singular" effects in relationships (meaning having any kind of relation) that one focuses on in order to evolve (if they have the intention). The relationship between individual entities that bring about evolution are the trees in the forest, and may have no apparent contribution to "evolution".

I could disappear tomorrow, begin a life a crime, and you'd never know it.
I might not consciously know it. That doesn't mean at all that it's not affecting me. I just haven't brought its effects on me or the rest of the matrix into my awareness.

Those "connections on many different levels" do not add up to practical, functioning links to other people, and do not affect individual spiritual growth...
Maybe for you they don't. Again, it's all awareness and intention. I agree that we give meaning to our actions, selves, incidences, lives - there is no inherent meaning. I choose to strive for meaning toward my "evolution" in every situtation, post, incident, relationship etc that I can. I don't always succeed and it doesn't imply that anyone else needs to focus on evolution. It just happens to be where my focus is, so that's where I put my intention and that becomes my "filter" for life.

These things are incomprehensible
Again, they are comprehensible. But only if one chooses to focus on discovery in that area. For example, I have had several dreams where I go inside a particular area of my physical body for viewing. These dreams still spoke to me in symbols (aka I didn't see the actual physical structure as it exists in this dimension, but a view "distorted" so as to convey a particular meaning that would make the message more comprehensible). It focused on one particular function/area instead of all cellular processes at once. But it still shows the ability is there if one has the intention, focus and energy toward it.

What you do over there in Italy means nothing to me here in the States
Really?
What about this thread and countless others?
If you suggest this is really having NO effect on you, then I would say your awareness is close to zilch, not that there is no relationship or effect happening.

The Emperor has no clothes on.
Better for intimate inspection.

Follow Ups:


[ Probiotics Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!