Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: LePatron7 on December 19, 2016, 12:42:24 am
-
Who thinks it would be a good idea to create a religion (not necessarily a real one, more a legal loop hole) for people who want to feed their kids raw diets?
Child Protective Services (CPS) could be quite... you already know. A religion could create a legal loop hole. After all lots of respected religions have "questionably safe" religious practices, and comparisons between could be used as very reasonable defenses in legal proceedings (hypothetically).
What do you think?
-
A new religion is needed regardless. The religions of old, while they carried us away from our savage ways, were not entirely enlightened and kept many of the horrors of primitive life, while fighting or eliminating some of the most fundamentally good aspects.
The world awaits a new messiah, that will bring with them a new religion that can properly identify the sins that the religions of old were not able to, and to do away with erroneous notions that have created sin out of things that are good.
On the legal aspects you mention, it may very well backfire. I'd tread carefully. Oftentimes a million individual souls are much harder to quash than an organization of which a million people are members of.
-
Actually, the whole business of making sex a sin was a theme of monotheistic religions, with the 3 Abrahamic branches being the worst of the lot. Polytheistic religions like the Roman, Ancient, Greek, Babylonian gods were much freer as regards sex, as they included themes such as sacred prostitutes, ancient Bacchic sex-cults involving drunken sex-orgies and so on.
-
Sex outside the marriage was properly recognized as a sin by most of the major religions that subsist to this day. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about how it was (perhaps ambiguously so) made out to be a sin to consume the flesh of certain healthy animals, and how it was implied that it was also a sin (perhaps not in scripture but definitely in practice) to consume the animals blood, organs and meat in the raw. At the same time, it was not recognized as a sin to beat your wife or your child (these were even praised), or even to have slaves who had not committed any crime and were slaves simply due to their race or circumstances of birth. Similary, barbaric mutilation practices that were not punishments for any crime, such as circumcision (of boys and girls), body piercing, castration, foot binding, etc, were not recognized as sins, and were often praised or even mandated as well.
-
Also, there were ambiguous misconceptions of wealth as being inherently sinful, such as the idea that a rich man can't be good, or that charging interest is somehow a bad thing, or that story where Jesus throws out the currency exchange people. Meanwhile it was implied that being poor was inherently a good thing.
Also, the "golden rule" is far from ideal. Many of the major religions including Christianity and Buddhism follow this tenet or something similar, when in fact a modified "tit for tat" strategy is a much better principle to live by.
Likewise, all major religions, not always in scripture but certainly in practice, especially in modern democratic times, grant the State the supreme authority over humanity in everyday life here on Earth, and relegate God only to have authority over the Heaven above and Hell below. Moreover, oftentimes it matters not what one's sins are as long as they either repent, or spread God's word, or atone for their sins, not by providing restitution to the ones they've harmed, but to the religious establishment or God. So in essence, plenty of followers are granted a blank check to sin as much as they please.
-
No, that's just your over defensive, projection coming from your white culture ego. It is not implied that being rich is bad and poor is good. It is implied that the love of material things, wealth, makes it extremely challenging if not impossible to avoid sin if one is unwilling to give up those things.
Next you are saying Eye for an Eye is better than the golden rule. Stop projecting your bigoted and inflated opinions as if they were facts, it's bloody disgusting.
Obviously, nothing is to be trusted in the Roman Catholic Bible...
-
DPL, there are healthier religions such as animism. And, like I said, the roman and greek religions did not promote only sex within marriage, they had all sorts of sex cults devoted to Bacchus/Dionysus , the Babylonians had their sacred prostitutes, where all the women had to sit inside a temple after reaching adulthood until they had had sex with a visiting merchant, after which they were allowed to marry anyone they liked and so on.
Many ancient religious customs, such as abandoning defective/unhealthy newborns in remote areas, were actually, ultimately, very beneficial to the relevant peoples.OK, I agree that modern religions are faulty in that they mostly frown on sex outside marriage etc. However, some Christian sects do promote polygamy, sex outside marriage etc.
-
No, that's just your over defensive, projection coming from your white culture ego. It is not implied that being rich is bad and poor is good. It is implied that the love of material things, wealth, makes it extremely challenging if not impossible to avoid sin if one is unwilling to give up those things.
Next you are saying Eye for an Eye is better than the golden rule. Stop projecting your bigoted and inflated opinions as if they were facts, it's bloody disgusting.
Obviously, nothing is to be trusted in the Roman Catholic Bible...
Ha! Thanks for that. For some reason I was under the impression that you had some wisdom, I see now that you're one of the most brainwashed member in these forums. Good luck with your self hatred and your staunch, unquestioning aggressiveness towards anything that contradicts your brainwashing. You have no curiosity and no individuality, and I suspect you never will.
-
DPL, there are healthier religions such as animism. And, like I said, the roman and greek religions did not promote only sex within marriage, they had all sorts of sex cults devoted to Bacchus/Dionysus , the Babylonians had their sacred prostitutes, where all the women had to sit inside a temple after reaching adulthood until they had had sex with a visiting merchant, after which they were allowed to marry anyone they liked and so on.
Many ancient religious customs, such as abandoning defective/unhealthy newborns in remote areas, were actually, ultimately, very beneficial to the relevant peoples.OK, I agree that modern religions are faulty in that they mostly frown on sex outside marriage etc. However, some Christian sects do promote polygamy, sex outside marriage etc.
I was talking about the major modern religions.
And again, to promote sex only within the marriage is one of the main great achievements of most major modern religions. And you probably know this is my view, as you've likely read my extensive posts on this topic in other threads.
-
I was talking about the major modern religions.
And again, to promote sex only within the marriage is one of the main great achievements of most major modern religions. And you know this is my view, as you've read my extensive posts on this topic in other threads.
I'm a christian and I don't see what is so great about marriage. Sex within marriage doesn't make you holy or righteous, married religious people are sinners just like the rest of us.
-
And again, to promote sex only within the marriage is one of the main great achievements of most major modern religions.
LOL! Ha! Ha! What a good joke!
-
LOL! Ha! Ha! What a good joke!
Why do you act surprised? I already explained to you in detail why this is the case in at least one recent thread.
-
Ha! Thanks for that. For some reason I was under the impression that you had some wisdom, I see now that you're one of the most brainwashed member in these forums. Good luck with your self hatred and your staunch, unquestioning aggressiveness towards anything that contradicts your brainwashing. You have no curiosity and no individuality, and I suspect you never will.
Ha talk about bold faced guffah and projectionism. You are clearly talking about yourself. I disagree with you whole heartedly, not because it was without truth, but because it was written with prejudice and no merit of evidence only brash opinions. I am anti authoritarian to a t, I don't need someone with words more useless than a gorillas words to tell me what to do nor do I need any geniuses words either, I am a sovereign man and I need no one to decide for me, not in my house.
-
On another note, what if not a religion and not a reality what if we created a fiction, a historical dramatization with all the flair of fantasy tied into real world style reality TV and of course copious consumption of raw meats ad hominem.
-
If anyone is truly interested in creating a Utopian religion I would like to hear their critique of Rudolph Steiner's philosophy of freedom.
-
Interestingly, ancient Greek and Roman cults devoted to Dionysus and Bacchus, respectively, sacrificed raw meat to their god for him to eat it. It might even be that the Maenads, cult-worshippers of Bacchus/Dionysus, ate raw meats in religious rituals:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omophagia
-
Why do you act surprised? I already explained to you in detail why this is the case in at least one recent thread.
You want to teach us as if your opinions are the ultimate truth and without having read what's been recommended to you, such as the famous book "Sex at Dawn" or posted in this thread:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg101663/#msg101663 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg101663/#msg101663)
and especially this:
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010)
Actually, the whole business of making sex a sin was a theme of monotheistic religions, with the 3 Abrahamic branches being the worst of the lot. Polytheistic religions like the Roman, Ancient, Greek, Babylonian gods were much freer as regards sex, as they included themes such as sacred prostitutes, ancient Bacchic sex-cults involving drunken sex-orgies and so on.
Absolutely true.
-
Re the last link Iguana showed:- I always recall being told as a child of the marvellous Eskimo religion-derived custom of lending their wives to strangers for the night. I found it such a refreshing contrast to the boring, prudish, Judaeo-Christian-Islamic sexlessness I had to encounter at school. Imagine if the 3 Abrahamic religions had never happened. The world would now be a far better place with far fewer wars, people would be going to their temples for their regular mass orgies like the Maenads did etc.
-
Just give me that raw-meat-religion!:-
"Bacchanalia[edit]
Further information: Bacchanalia
Cultist rites associated with worship of the Greek god of wine, Dionysus (or Bacchus in Roman mythology), were allegedly characterized by maniacal dancing to the sound of loud music and crashing cymbals, in which the revelers, called Bacchantes, whirled, screamed, became drunk and incited one another to greater and greater ecstasy. The goal was to achieve a state of enthusiasm in which the celebrants’ souls were temporarily freed from their earthly bodies and were able to commune with Bacchus/Dionysus and gain a glimpse of and a preparation for what they would someday experience in eternity. The rite climaxed in a performance of frenzied feats of strength and madness, such as uprooting trees, tearing a bull (the symbol of Dionysus) apart with their bare hands, an act called sparagmos, and eating its flesh raw, an act called omophagia. This latter rite was a sacrament akin to communion in which the participants assumed the strength and character of the god by symbolically eating the raw flesh and drinking the blood of his symbolic incarnation. Having symbolically eaten his body and drunk his blood, the celebrants became possessed by Dionysus."
Note that last bit about eating the flesh and blood of Dionysus in a symbolic way via the worshipper eating raw meat and drinking wine. One can see that Christianity ripped off that religious theme for the Communion in Church....
-
Perhaps daiorpl is correct about me in some sense. Though I can be a perciever I am also one who judges. I have had my own religion my entire life and it is very simple knowledge that I think can be learned anywhere in the world very easily by allowing a child to range free in nature without a great deal of scrutiny. The earth is our mother and we are but only temporary residents here. Man has no authority over earth, this is the madness that is civilization. God is good and there are universal laws we can't ever understand that watch over us. Money is a lie because more than enough to sustain life flows in the water, sprouts out of the ground or plummets to the earth. Scarcity and desert are human artifices. Progress is really prostethis. Onward great spirit.
-
Just give me that raw-meat-religion!:-
Note that last bit about eating the flesh and blood of Dionysus in a symbolic way via the worshiper eating raw meat and drinking wine. One can see that Christianity ripped off that religious theme for the Communion in Church....
Christian communion is merely a watered down version of the practices of ancient blood sacrifice cults. No doubt during these rituals raw meat and blood were consumed, as well as drug laced cocktails (they called wine). The flesh, blood, and sacramental drugs of the Dionysus cults has been replaced with cheap wine, stale wafers, and an overabundance of guilt for pleasures of the flesh.
Much of religion as it is practiced today is a half baked fake ripoff of more ancient and raw practices.
Naming a god and creating a legally recognized organized religion would only be a desperate attempt to evoke and insure a false sense of security and stability....this goes against against the nomadic and pantheistic spirit of the paleolithic way of life. Instead of inventing a religion I chose to live my religion, and if such unbridled freedom is too much for the local yokels to tolerate then its time to move on. The world has, at least for now, plenty of places for lovers of raw flesh to go and raise families without oppression.
-
Naming a god and creating a legally recognized organized religion would only be a desperate attempt to evoke and insure a false sense of security and stability....this goes against against the nomadic and pantheistic spirit of the paleolithic way of life. Instead of inventing a religion I chose to live my religion, and if such unbridled freedom is too much for the local yokels to tolerate then its time to move on. The world has, at least for now, plenty of places for lovers of raw flesh to go and raise families without oppression.
The idea isn't to actually make a religion for the sake of practicing a religion. But to create a religion for legal purposes that enjoys the same legal loop holes that other religions enjoy for 'questionable practices.'
It would create a legal loop hole where child protective services, etc. couldn't intervene in a parent feeding their kids a raw diet, giving them supplements, etc.
Muslims and Jews practice circumcision which isn't consensual, can result in death, etc., Jehovah's Witnesses can let their kids die without getting a blood transfusion, and things like that could be used as a comparable argument for why people of a 'raw diet' religion can feed their kids as they please.
Again, the idea is not to make an actual religion and practice. The idea is to create legal loop holes (a legally registered religion) where legally people could feed their kids raw diets, etc.
-
There have been a few divorce cases involving 1 RVAF-dieter parent, but they seem to have gone well for the RVAFers, mostly because most such RVAFers were women. Local authorities do not generally interefer with childrens' diets unless they can actually prove that the children are in severe ill-health. After a wifeswap episode involving 1 RVAF diet couple and 1 SAD-eating couple, there were many calls to the relevant sheriffs to go and jail the RVAF couple, but the authorities refused as the children of the RVAF couple were perfectly healthy.
-
This was likely simply good luck. The State will take kids away from parents if the children aren't brainwashed with the State's education programs, even if there is clearly nothing wrong with their mental health or knowledge about the world, and even if they are quite able to outperform their peers in many areas when it comes to knowledge and abilities. You have a tendency to assume this benevolent State mentality until there is widespread and undeniable evidence to the contrary in a particular area. This is not a good strategy. You need to look into the future and try and predict what will happen next, not simply react to what's already happened in the past.
This lifestyle is still barely known, and an attempt to crack down on it at this point would simply bring attention to it, and as a result, many more people would be drawn to it. The powerful don't want people adopting this lifestyle, so they know now is not the time to crack down on it and demonize it, but surely there will come a time when they'll believe that to be the best course of action, and rest assured they will employ it.
-
All this conspiracy theory of yours is pointless in view of the unassailable fact that totalitarianism varies from State to State. One State will allow freedom of expression within some limits, others will forbid it but allow other freedoms etc.
-
Agree with Tyler,
Totalitarian oppression is limited to geographical ghettos of Provencal dingbat bureaucratic overreach. Codes and enforcement are largely selective, and if you feel personally threatened and oppressed by the local big brother culture, then it would be far more reasonable to move to a place where the spirit is more in-tune with your way of life....than evoking some religious exemption in order to protect oneself and family....You may get off the hook in family court with a religious argument, but still, who wants to live in a community where it is necessary to invent religious chicanery loopholes.
I watched an interesting interview with the singer from Metallica. He relocated his family from California to Colorado to get away from the cultural prejudiced of progressive oppression.
“I kind of got sick of the Bay Area, the attitudes of the people there, a little bit,” Hetfield said. “They talk about how diverse they are, and things like that, and it’s fine if you’re diverse like them. But showing up with a deer on the bumper doesn’t fly in Marin County. My form of eating organic doesn’t vibe with theirs.” James Hetfield
5:15 to 14:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O6QPTawR14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O6QPTawR14)
-
One of the key successes of fundamentalist religious sects has been to completely dominate a particular area. For example, some US Mormon Fundamentalist sects basically wholly voted as a block so that every elected local official ended up one of them, and they would slowly infest the ranks over the years until every non-elected local official was also one of theirs. After that, they could dictate the local policy vis-a-vis their religion for eternity.
-
I think it's a very good idea.
Think about it. What's to stop CPS (similar to what happened to you SaberTooth) from knocking on someone's door and taking their kids because they feed them raw milk, raw eggs, or other raw animal foods? Virtually nothing.
They've taken people's kids for less - leaving kids in a car with the A/C on, parents using medical marijuana, and feeding their babies raw milk ( http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/parental-rights-threatened-because-of-babys-diet-state-demands-corn-syrup-laden-baby-formula-over-natural-goats-milk/ (http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/parental-rights-threatened-because-of-babys-diet-state-demands-corn-syrup-laden-baby-formula-over-natural-goats-milk/) ).
I think it's a reality we need to address. If we want our kids eating raw diets, do we want to have the threat of CPS and other government agencies taking our kids, or do we want a solid legal defense to protect our families?
The defense is clear.
Religious freedom is incredibly important, and we're 100% for all religious freedoms, and our religion isn't the only religion with controversial practices. Being controversial doesn't mean people shouldn't have the freedom to.
Jews and Muslims circumcise their male children, and approximately 117 circumcised infants die from the practice ( http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html (http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html) ).
Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their kids, even resulting in death ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027599/Jehovah-s-Witness-baby-die-refuses-blood-transfusion-seven-months-pregnant-cancer-80-chance-surviving-treatment.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027599/Jehovah-s-Witness-baby-die-refuses-blood-transfusion-seven-months-pregnant-cancer-80-chance-surviving-treatment.html) ).
It makes sense to me, a fake religion would provide some security for raw dieters to feed their kids as they please.
-
And coincidentally, it's the holiday season.
So happy holidays to everyone!
-
Merry Christmas!
-
Creating a new religion is going to be nearly impossible. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but you have to convince others of the legitimacy of your religion. It's a matter that requires a large group of people, a long struggle and many sacrifices. You will have to dedicate your whole life to the endeavor.
A better approach is to simply say that your religion (pick your favorite one) requires you to eat a certain food raw for (made up reasons) over the duration of (pick your timeline). No one will know better, bother checking and least of all argue with you, as it is politically incorrect. For example, you could just say "my sect of Islam, the Sufi, requires me to eat food raw during Eid-ul-Adha to honor the sacrifices of Muhammad to Alla during his Farewell Pilgrimage (pronounce it in arabic)".