[another last-minute insertion] TaN: “Peace at all cost” — an oxymoron if I ever did hear one. The phrase implies that peace is so primordial that if violence must be utilized to achieve it, so be it. This is Machiavellian and Machiavelli’s principle — of “The end justfies the means” have already been repeatedly, consistently, and convincingly — has been proven to not only been detrimental but downright unwise. It is contradictory that one strives to achieve a status via a means that is the exact diametrical opposite of the objective or goal.
The adage “Fighting fire with fire” never works. Adding fire to fire only makes the fire larger and often fiercer. Achieving peace via the use of violence leaves the peace to be questionable, unstable, and indefensible. That kind of peace will not have any moral leg to stand on and will be open to challenges and scrutiny.
A far better manner or alternative to achieving peace would be: “Be like the gentle breeze that calms the rough seas” (for increasing the intensity of the wind merely fuels and exacerbates violent waves and rough seas) or my own concoction, “Let us not fight for peace, but rather let us work for it“. It does not make sense, by any stretch of the imagination or argument, that peace will be attained by the use of precisely what is contrary. I am reminded of the infamous and ill-conceived “joke” of the Ferdinand Marcos Sr Martial Law years — There is peace and order in the Philippines under martial law. The opposition and non-conformists are “killed peacefully and buried orderly”.
There should be and is a limit as to what means can, are or may be used to achieve peace. There can be no true and lasting peace if it is attained by violent or unrighteous means.
“Peace the right way.”
[last-minute insertion] TaN: In last week’s article in Natural News (dated March 6 and titled “Orthorexia nervosa — A new mental disorder aimed at people who insist on eating a clean diet“), it is not really something new nor is it totally unexpected or surprising.
First, the term or phrase “Orthorexia nervosa” was supposedly coined by a certain Steven Bratman, MD more than a decade ago. Bratman had already foreseen that the eventuality of putting a lot of effort into ensuring that one is healthy by being very selective and careful with all foods.
However, in the article, it was, in the latter portion, argued that (and I quote): “There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating a 100% clean, healthy diet 100% of the time.” And I agreed completely with the statement, assuming that Big Business is not engaged in fraudulent and deceptive marketing and that the average consumer is diligent and clever enough to discern between healthy and unhealthy and “healthy” food.
Moreover, aside from the unscrupulous tactics and strategies of Big Business to ensure larger and larger profits, the average consumer still has a lot to learn to be knowledgeable to the machinations of Big Business to undermine their attempts to purchase and consume healthy foods — by disguising and constantly renaming or redefining terms to cause mass confusion and mis-understanding — while also learning to truly peruse and comprehend health reports and findings.
Some cases in point are: (1) red wine is good for the heart; (2) coffee is a healthful beverage; (3) vegetables is healthy; (4) juicing is healthy; and, (5) stevia, the latest craze in healthy (natural) sweeteners, is good for the health. Let us tackle these one at a time.
First, red wine is good for the heart. This is true but only for people whose ancestry have been consuming red wine down the generations. What the findings or (medical) news reports do not or fail to mention is that red wine benefits the hearts of those whose forebears have the specific gene in the DNA activated (or switched ON) that will take advantage of what (the resveratrol in) red wine offers. Therefore, Asians and people who forefathers have not been consuming red wine as a staple in their diet will not benefit (much) from consuming red wine — or may even be detrimental (in the long run).
Second, coffee is good for the circulatory system, especially the heart. This is likewise true but only if the coffee is (organic or naturally grown) brewed — i.e., freshly ground and brewed and taken black. What Big Business does is make it appear that instant and processed coffee is healthy when, in truth, it is “toxic”. (Medical) news reports conveniently omit or fail to mention this “minor” detail so it will appear that all coffee are “created equal”. [Btw, caffeine both raises the blood pressure (in a good way) in both men and women but does it differently. In men, caffeine narrows or constricts the blood vessels which decreases the carrying capacity of blood vessels and, in turn, forces the heart to increase the pumping force to get the same volume of blood through the arteries, while caffeine increases the heart beat so the pressure in the blood vessels shoot up. In both cases, blood pressure goes up.]
Third, vegetables is good for health, especially if they are organic or naturally grown. This is very true, especially for leafy or high-fiber vegetables, but the benefits are obtained only when the vegetables — aside from being organically or naturally grown — are consumed raw or at least unheated (because they can be pickled or ceviche (the uncooked but cured version)). The more vegetables are heated, the less beneficial or healthy they are. This is the common misconception of most people and the pronouncements of so-called experts and health professionals do not help — unless you count profiting from the misguidance.
Fourth and last, stevia is most certainly good for health. And still like all the previous, in order for it to be beneficial must be taken as nature or God intended…unprocessed — as little or as close to nature’s original state as possible. So, the emerging (processed) stevia market is misleading although it cannot be discounted that there will be some benefit but not the full benefit that may be derived if stevia was consumed as is — RAW. Commercialization negates the maximum benefits that could have been obtained.
What all this means is that the more we “deviate” from what is natural, the worse or far off it becomes. And when we depend on or are misled by so-called health experts or professionals, we have no one to blame but ourselves — for not doing our own research and be lazy. We laze at our own risk.
And this is where “orthorexia nervosa” comes in. Because we — wittingly or not — become obsessed or paranoid with being healthy but do not really do any serious and careful research and choose to believe in what others tell us. This is the “orthos” portion, where we think we are eating healthy but have been deceived. The “exia” is the eating or appetite portion. And the “nervosa” is the obsession portion.
TaN: Science rules the mind, not the heart and this can be dangerous — not that science ruling the heart is better or that it can rule the heart. What is happening today is that science has been corrupted and hijacked to serve the self-interests of the greedy and power elite. Today’s so-called science is now pseudo science but I hesitate to call it Alchemy — it will be an insult.
Science was once heralded as objective and bearer of truth. It was once held that, for as long as it is science-based, it must be true and therefore believable. Science can be trusted.
But all that has changed. Unfortunately, for most of the world, very few realized this turn of events, while those who have some inkling (deep down, their gut feeling is telling them otherwise) that something seems to be askew still and despite it chooses to continue with trusting current science.
(Pseudo) “Science” today is used being used to peddle snake oil and there is constant and persistent bombardment from Big Media and Big Ad/Marketing, all funded by Big Business, to suppress Truth from surfacing because there is always a new generation emerging that needs to be “conditioned” against the Truth — as well as pockets of “resistance” (from critical thinkers and truth seekers) desperately finding creative and innovative ways to bring the Truth out into the light.
One must be aware and alert against the machinations and manipulations of science by Big Business to suit their interests and agenda. Do not permit science to be bastardized and hijacked to condition the mind into what Big Business intends.
Science, like any tool, can be good or bad depending on the whims of man. It can likewise be used to counter any and all attempts to undermine the Truth. Just be vigilant — at all times. And that is a tall order, for it has been said the the price of freedom (and harmony, I might add) is eternal vigilance.
TaN: Most or at least many people, myself included, have the bad tendency to put words in other people’s mouths. It is difficult to correct but not impossible. Other times, though it may not be intentional, we also tend to put forth statements — written or spoken — that may mislead others, mostly due to wrong choice of words.
A case in point regarding “putting words in others’ mouths”, when the news report on the Mamasapano incident (in the Philippines) a certain AFP (armed forces of the Philippines) official said, when contacted by the PNP (Philippine National Police) seeking assistance, that there were certain military units available. In the report, it appears that the PNP official took AFP reply as a confirmation that military assistance were already being deployed and assisting the SAF (Special Action Force) in trouble when in fact the statement only meant that assistance is available but not necessarily providing assistance already.
In another more recent instance, on a broadsheet, the headline read “Bong son shot, wounded“. The headline implies that someone shot at Bong’s son (Jolo Revilla), but if you read the contents of the report, it claims that it was an accident because he, Jolo, was cleaning his gun when it “accidentally” went off. This is misleading because the headlines wants people to think that there was an attempt on Jolo’s life. However, the headline — Bong’s son shot, wounded — sells more newspapers. If it was unintentional, it must be noted and not repeated. If it was intended to attract more readers, it was unethical.
TaN: At the moment of birth, it is said that one’s date of death has been set. Does this mean that there is pre-destination, that one is fated to die on a certain date and there is nothing one can do about it? What is the significance of this epiphany?
Actually, it is a bit more complicated as dying on a specific pre-ordained date. Although it is true that one’s date with destiny has been set at the moment of birth, that “date” is not to be taken or interpreted literally, as in a given date sometime in the future. If this were so, it would contradict the argument that one’s existence in this reality is to serve a purpose, which is frequently interpreted as our “purpose for living” or “meaning of life”.
“Date of death” should be interpreted as a situation coming true — similar to the “end of the world”. In the Holy Scriptures, it is written that Jesus said, when asked when will the world end and if He knows when it will be, that “of that day and hour knoweth no man, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matthew 24:36, KJV) and “of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32, KJV).
However, Christ did give hints or clues, signs to watch out for which are indications that the end of the world is nigh. This implies that Christ has some idea but as the exactness of the time is left to the Father to decide but He knows the conditions that the Father is waiting for before making the fateful decision. So, in this case, the date of the end of the world is determined by the fulfillment of certain pre-conditions established.
This is likewise the case with one’s “date of death” being set at the time of birth. Since I argue that one’s existence is because of a purpose we have to fulfill, the date with destiny will be on whenever that date when we have accomplished our purpose is. The unfortunate thing is what we are doing at the time we have served our purpose — some people have it during sleep while others in other occasions, some as tragic as accidents and disasters while some may have served their purpose by just being born hence their “short lives”.
One’s purpose in this reality does not always involve active participation. As mentioned, some may be passive, like just being born.
In any case, the moment of one’s death is not so much a particular date sometime in our life but when certain events and conditions have been fulfilled. It is only then that we will be “recalled” — mission accomplished.
TaN: A species can produce or branch off a sub-species but never another species. This is the fundamental truth that is largely ignored by mainstream science — even by those who are Christians (I have no idea how they can reconcile their belief — the theory of evolution (but not selective breeding). Selective breeding is the cause of a species developing sub-species and variants but not evolution — as in from a species to an entirely different species, much less genus.
The case of the “missing link” is not only applied to the disconnect between apes and man but permeates all life forms. There has never been any conclusive evidence of a species evolving into another, much less from one family to another — as in from reptiles to birds. One of the strongest arguments is why did evolution stop? Why did life stopped changing from one to another? If evolution is true, there should still be plants and animals (i.e., their offspring or descendants) changing from their present (or their parents’ state and form) into an entirely different form, or even an intermediary. If evolution is still ongoing, then there should still be new species arising from other species — like apes into humans.
It is really unbelievably incredible that well-educated people can believe in fantasy. They claim to have their arguments and conclusions founded solidly in hard evidence yet there seems to be none when it comes to evolution. There has neither been unearthed nor found any real evidence of a transition species — like an offspring of a reptile that is half-reptile and half-bird. This is exacerbated by the argument that, since the shape and design of the mouth determines the diet, the offspring must have a mouth part that can take the food of the parent otherwise it would start. And this is not yet arguing over the digestive system and many other aspects of consideration.
So, it appears that science is not really founded on hard evidence after all but on conjecture, speculation, guesses, and fantastic imagination — at least where evolution is concerned.