how about the 7th day adventists?
type them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh...ventist_Church
they actually do the whole clean/unclean foods thing. big on separation of church & state. promote vegetarianism. health-obsessed. etc.
Integral type of 7th day adventists
how about the 7th day adventists?
type them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh...ventist_Church
they actually do the whole clean/unclean foods thing. big on separation of church & state. promote vegetarianism. health-obsessed. etc.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
edited.
Well, I am a Seventh Day Adventist, 4th generation in fact ... what a coincidence.
If you guys are going to comment on this, you will definatelly need to watch this video!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dluh9YqSKXY[/youtube]
.
not bad analysis diana!
my first impression was alpha, generally, just based on the fact that my mom is into these guys. there is sort of weirdand
thing going on. god, good work, diana.
and my mother is ESFj, btw.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
How is the above offensive?
You know I did study Theology at an Adventist Univerty [hence, I have the same exact University education that the majority of Adventists Pastors have] and I am familiar with everything in the above.
The only thing I am going to say in regards to what evanesce wrote is that it is very easy to take the human actions of people and try to make a case to make a certain Christian denomination look bad, which I do not think that this is the case here necessarily, but it usually is. Not to mention that it is also very easy to make biased judgements when you do not want to believe in something, and that can cause some leap in judgement and contextes. I can give some pretty good examples of websites and people who do these sort of things. They are all over the internet actually. I would actually say that the good majority of things that are said about the Adventist church to place it in a negitive light is either totally untrue, biased, or consists of some sort of 'straw man argumention' that is for the most part laughable. The sad part is that people who do not know any better believe that these things are true and then go spread the stuff around like candy, because maybe they are disgruntled themselves. Although I can see some personal reasons why from my own personal experience why they might be disgruntled, but I am not going to get into that. I just think it is wrong that in stead of being honest with why they are disgruntled, people who are disgruntled with the Adventist church spend alot of their time spreading falsehoods. I mind you, that does not mean that there are not issues with the church, there are and I can vouch for that. But people need to be honest about them and not spread things that are not true.
A few other things here:
It is true that Ellen White was severely brain damaged as a child. Some of the things that she wrote do sometimes seem a little laughable if you do not first understand why she wrote them and if you read her writtings she does say some things a little confusingly and inconsistently. Many of her supposed "contradictions" in her writtings are simply inflictions of the way that she normally expressed her ideas in her writtings, which as I said is sometimes a little confusing, inconsistent, and coften contains odd grammatical errors. Wehther or not her visions are attributed to being brain damaged or attributed to divine inspiration is a debate in the Adventist church. There are some things that Ellen White had visions about that turned out to be true, supposedly. Such as the vision she had of San Francisco burning after the earthquake and where she described that there was a burning wind that consumned people alive, that was documented. Although other things are debatable, like the 9/11 disaster where some Adventists claim she predicted that. That may or may not be true.You've got Ellen G. White their "prophetess" who was also a plagiarist, and an epileptic from a childhood injury (which led to seizures in which she claims visions), and into some other odd things, and it's from her that they got most of their teachings. Her, and the Millerites with the "great disappointment".
Her first book was called "Early Writtings" and she details several visions she had and also has sort of an Autobiography. Later she did write several books now titled "Conflict of the Ages" series and the chief one on Adventist doctrine is called "The Great Controversy" ... there is also a series of several books called "The Testimonies," which details alot of her dreams and also have decent every day advice in them. She did write other small books such as "In His Steps" and "Glad Tidings" for certain specific reason, such as for fund raising purposes to build sanitariums, hospitals, and schools. If I remember correctly she wrote Glad Tidingd as a way to fund the construction of Kellogg's Sanitarium and also for Andrew's University [I think?], which is where the main Seminary for the denomination currently is. She never keeped the money derived for selling books for herself and it was solely to fund building projects and missionary efforts.
A second thing that I am going to address is the accusation of Plagerism, which I think should be addressed in context. People who claim that Ellen White was a plagerists usually do so simply on the account that it appears to be a negitive term [again, back to people who are disgruntled with the Adventist church and want to place it in a negitive light] and also because she did indeed have written works attributed to her that she never wrote. In fact, she probably only wrote about half of the Great controvery and the other half was written by either other Adventist scholars or borrowed from other sources, such as history or other religious books. In fact, some portions of the Great Controvery has doctrine in it that Ellen White was personally in disagreement with and was placed there by the editorial staff of the time and published. She did borrow some texts from other Religious books, added some texts of her own, and these were sold for a profit for Missionary activity and for Building Churches, Schools, Hospitals, etc. However, it should also be noted that technically in that day and age this 'plagerism' that people accuse Ellen White of was a common practice among not only among Ellen White, the Pastors in the Adventist Church of the time, but in other denominations. It was very common, as it is common now in probably more limited aspects, for Religious denominations to borrow material from each other for whatever purpose, be that for preaching or otherwise. It has nothing to do with a person taking credit for what was written, it has to do with the fact that it was traditional and is still traditional for Religious circles to borrow from one another. To call Ellen White a Plagerists in this aspect is not only totally inaccurate, it is untrue and the only intention is to dishonestly shed false negitive light on a church that dare I say might deserve it in other aspects, but does not deserve to have falsehood spread about it. That is being dishonest and it is a shame people do not know better.
The last thing that I am going to say is that it is false that the Millerite movement was the sole method of the Adventist church gaining specific doctrines, because that is simply not true. The Adventist church actually has its main roots in American style of deism and Existentialists practices of Europe, in connection with the belief that 1844 has prophetic signifigance, which is also a belief that was popularized not only in that time, but in Midevil Europe and before. For example, a Rabbi named Rashi, who was a priest and a beermaker, in Germany is very well known in the 11th century for teaching that the end of the world would be somewhere around 1844, and there is a Muslim sect called "Bahai faith" that takes the book of Daniel and uses the same exact arguments that Adventists have for 1844. The practice of abstaining from unclean meats came from an earnest study of the bible and the decision that there was no where honestly in the bible that gave any indication whatsosever that there was a change in the clean/unclean food law [the same thing with the Adventists view of death], even past the time of the apostles. The meeting on the Seventh day of the week was a practice borrowed from 7th Day Baptists who lived in upper New York at the time. Of course there is more, but most anything else is the same as in any other denomination and I do not think is important to mention.
I think that saying 'a little different message' is totally streatching the truth. I do know that the Ellen White Estate does revise and redit text when they see a reason to do so. In fact, I have been personally responsible in the past for a few of those revisions.They tend to refer to Ellen G's writings an awful lot, even though her books are routinely re-edited to be released with a little different message than the one just prior. It's kind of interesting to look at very old versions of the books compared to newer ones.
In any case, if anyone wants to discuss Ellen White, a better place is to do it right in this forum:
http://egwrctx.info/community/index.php
The main website is here: http://egwrctx.info/
This is run by a personal friend of mind who works for the Texas branch of the Ellen White Estate and can literally get you copies of anything Ellen White has ever written, seriously. Eeverything is freely open and there are no vaults or secret documents as some people try to claim. The only reason people were able to claim that in the past was because it was harder to spread all of the documents and therefore some of them were not all released at once. That is not the case anymore with the internet.
And in case anyone was wondering, I think the adventist church is
this is all i need to see of this thread. this video really, really, really makes me feel sick. i can't even stomach discussing or arguing about it.Originally Posted by rmcnew
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
If they were so health obsessed, then they wouldn't be vegetarian. And there are two main reasons why being vegetarian is unhealthy;
1) Our bodies need amino acids that vegtables don't provide
2) A lot of vegtables are toxic
For the first one, there are 20 amino acids, 10 which our bodies produce, and the other 10, produced by animals, are called essential amino acids, because we need them in our body almost eveyday. NO vegtables have all the essential amino acids which most animal products we eat do, and those that do have some of them, have less then the animal products. And for the second one, vegatables try and provent things from eating them, so they produce toxins to kill the animals that try. For example, spinach has oxalic acid, which if you ate to much of it in a day, would be fatal.
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
and this assortment of factual information has to do with Si how?If they were so health obsessed, then they wouldn't be vegetarian. And there are two main reasons why being vegetarian is unhealthy;
1) Our bodies need amino acids that vegtables don't provide
2) A lot of vegtables are toxic
For the first one, there are 20 amino acids, 10 which our bodies produce, and the other 10, produced by animals, are called essential amino acids, because we need them in our body almost eveyday. NO vegtables have all the essential amino acids which most animal products we eat do, and those that do have some of them, have less then the animal products. And for the second one, vegatables try and provent things from eating them, so they produce toxins to kill the animals that try. For example, spinach has oxalic acid, which if you ate to much of it in a day, would be fatal.
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
Did I say it did?and this assortment of factual information has to do with Si how?If they were so health obsessed, then they wouldn't be vegetarian. And there are two main reasons why being vegetarian is unhealthy;
1) Our bodies need amino acids that vegtables don't provide
2) A lot of vegtables are toxic
For the first one, there are 20 amino acids, 10 which our bodies produce, and the other 10, produced by animals, are called essential amino acids, because we need them in our body almost eveyday. NO vegtables have all the essential amino acids which most animal products we eat do, and those that do have some of them, have less then the animal products. And for the second one, vegatables try and provent things from eating them, so they produce toxins to kill the animals that try. For example, spinach has oxalic acid, which if you ate to much of it in a day, would be fatal.
yes you did; you suggested that they were not Si based on their ignorance this information, suggesting that if they applied this information they would be Si.
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
This just so does not apply to Adventist style of vegitarian it is absurd. Just because you are called a vegitarian does not mean you only eat vegitables. Plus, it says in the bible that the origional diet was a mixture of various nuts and grass together, which actually forms a complete protein. No Adventists would do what is above, it is just stupid to do.If they were so health obsessed, then they wouldn't be vegetarian. And there are two main reasons why being vegetarian is unhealthy;
1) Our bodies need amino acids that vegtables don't provide
2) A lot of vegtables are toxic
For the first one, there are 20 amino acids, 10 which our bodies produce, and the other 10, produced by animals, are called essential amino acids, because we need them in our body almost eveyday. NO vegtables have all the essential amino acids which most animal products we eat do, and those that do have some of them, have less then the animal products. And for the second one, vegatables try and provent things from eating them, so they produce toxins to kill the animals that try. For example, spinach has oxalic acid, which if you ate to much of it in a day, would be fatal.
mcnew... can you get like a spell checker or something? it's really annoying when you're trying to make a real argument.
I don't argue in this forum anymore, though I might get a spellchecker.
Well, that may be what you thought I said but I didn't say nor mean it.
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
Yes, nuts and beans and things to have some proteins, but not all kinds of amino acids, and at the same time, having less of them, which is what I said. Also, plants still do have toxins. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't eat them, but not only them.
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
Yeah, but mixing them together you can get a complete protein. Also eating meat is not any healthier, it is just quicker.Yes, nuts and beans and things to have some proteins, but not all kinds of amino acids, and at the same time, having less of them, which is what I said. Also, plants still do have toxins. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't eat them, but not only them.
Does this religion actually have a socionics type?
does this question even need be answered?
I didn't think so. I'm just confused about how some philosophies/beliefs seem to somehow manage to be considered appropriate for "what's my type" and some do not.
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
I don't think you know what a protein is.
does anyone else find this thread really funny? I like the tangents.
Re: since we're typing buddhism and such.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
Although I'm not sure that will successfully explain to you where your error lies. But it's worth a shot.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
By "complete protein" I am implying that every single necessary amino acid that is not completely manufactured in the human body is found in together in one food source. This can be a mixture such as beans and rich or even meat.
I do not believe I have commited any intitial so called "errors" in what I have implied, but I do generally think there is alot of misinformation out there spread by people who think that meat is the only appropiate food source and then make silly ignorant arguments for that reason.
BTW instead of searching for just protein in wikipedia, searching for complete protein is a more direct search option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein
In any case, if anyone wants to discuss complete proteins, a better place is to do it right in this forum:
http://biowww.net/forum/list/18
This is run by a personal friend of mind who works for the Texas branch of the Complete Protein Society and can literally get you copies of anything ever written about complete proteins, seriously. Eeverything is freely open and there are no vaults or secret documents as some people try to claim. The only reason people were able to claim that in the past was because it was harder to spread all of the documents and therefore some of them were not all released at once. That is not the case anymore with the internet.
Rick, were you being sarcastic with that?
In any case there is a reason I wrote that like I did, but I do not think anyone has ever said the same thing about protein information? It seems a bit out of context.
No, sorry if it came across that way. I was just in a humorous mood and enjoyed the absurdity of the result...
I see ... nothing wrong with a little satire now and again.
The phrase you would be seeking is "all essential amino acids." Consuming all of the essential amino acids is not directly equal to a complete protein.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
Well, you know what I ment regardless. A person needs to eat a variety of food in order to obtain all amino acids and function properly. That is not disputable.The phrase you would be seeking is "all essential amino acids." Consuming all of the essential amino acids is not directly equal to a complete protein.
Then why EXCLUDE meats? Especially when they have more amino acids then vegtables? I know I've said this three times, but you seem to be going in circles. I may (may) be able to see an "ethical" reason for not eating animals (I don't think so, but I can see it), but fore health reasons? No. I eat meat, vegtables, fish, tofu, grains, milk, whatever. I think that's much healthier then eating nuts and beans everyday.
This whole conversation is circular because it involves a person who likes eating alot of eat and another whole likes eating vegitarian. All I am going to say on the subject is that obviously Humans and most other animals are intended to be Herbivores, but are functioning as Omnbivores meerly out of necessity of not having to be held to eating nuts and leaves all day long. That is pretty much it.
I thought I said I liked eating pretty much every type of food, and gave two reasons why it's healthier to not rely on *only* vegetation.
???All I am going to say on the subject is that obviously Humans and most other animals are intended to be Herbivores, but are functioning as Omnbivores meerly out of necessity of not having to be held to eating nuts and leaves all day long. That is pretty much it.
How do you know we are intended to be herbivores? Didn't men evolve (oh, sorry, you're Christian, forget I used that word) by hunting other animals and settling near fishing locations to allow their brains to grow? Big fish eat little fish, lions eat gazzeles, we're not the only ones. Protecting other animals is probably a morally unique human quality, and if anything, it's those moral reasons that are clouding the pseudo-health reasons people give. But it's not "healthier".
I'm not one to tell somebody that their religious beliefs are wrong (if that's what this is about), but I asked my wife about this who is a physician and there are a number of things necessary to the human body that you just can't get via a strictly vegan diet. I think the scientific debate on the "proper" human diet is still very much open for debate, but not it's not obvious, and there's also plenty of scientific evidence out there that this isn't true.
Te-INTp/ILI, my wife: Fi-ISFj/ESI, with laser beam death rays for ESTp/SLEs, lol
16 years of bliss in an Activity relationship
There's plenty of gaps in evolution theory for which there are no explanations.
The problem with the supposed "scientific data" is that it is all biased in some way shape or form. You have groups that have agendas to promote specific products and then create research to support claims that their products are healthy. In any case, I am not sure about vegan diet, but there are lots of different types of vegitarians, so I am not sure if a study specifically on vegans is accurate for all vegitarians.
Since the reasons people have for pro or against eating meat people seem to do so for subjective reasons anyhow, I see no point in arguing. If you guys want to stick to the 'meat is better because it is quick and dirty' method of eating, which I do not think is entirely wrong, go right ahead. I have already stated what I am going to say and if no one wants to believe that it is possible to live off of peanut butter and bread sandwhiches or beans and rice or any other vegitarian mixture that includes all essential proteins to life, go ahead and eat meat. Just do not tell me that it is not possible to be a vegitarian, since it is just not as complete as eating meat eating individual items and having to mix things. Actually that does not make eating meat any better in my book either, but who am I to judge.
To Rocky:
Evolution is not a scientific fact, it is a theory based on the mindset of Europeans of the Industrial Revolution and was founded on non-scientific principles, which contradict what is known today about genetics. Everyone has their own reasons for or against eating meat, some religious some not so religious. I really do not give a crap personally.
And as far as people being physically made to eat non-meat products, this webpage:
http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm
Thanks for reminding me how much I hate postmodernism.
Most 7th day adventists I know are ESFjs, this might just be coincidental though.
On the vegetarian issue. I am a vegetarian and I have been one for most of my life. My doctor thinks I am healthy and I also think I am healthy too...no nutrition or protein related problems whatsoever. I am a vegetarian because the thought of harming another animal for my own gain does not sit well with my own personal ethics at all and I also simply do not like meat, especially the smell of it. At the same time, I do not have anything against anyone who eats meat, I view it as a personal issue based on what a person considers ethical and beneficial and very few things are black or white.
The vegetables is toxic thing is not a point of view i understand readily and one can also go organic if they are worried about certain fertilisers. i think meat, fish and a whole range of things contains toxins/hormones etc too. In the western world, most people's protein intake including that of some vegetarian tends to be too high rather than too low or poor in quality. Vegetarians IMO (& "confirmed" by several studies) are also less likely to suffer from obesity and weight related problems.
The amino acid/ protein issue as I understand it is explained at this site: http://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspart...vegetarian.htm
and I do not believe that Issac Newton, Thomas Edison (or myself) have suffered due to vegetarianism.
Socionics: XNFx
MBTI: INFJ
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote