Clean eating diets and spiritual purity

The cult of healthy eating has more in common with religion than science

Purging behaviour is psychiatrically unhealthy.

The human body is more microbe than DNA.

You are not clean.

You can be healthy.

It’s a cult when you’re never allowed to question it.

If you really wanted to follow (diet), you wouldn’t need the positive re-enforcement of lovebombing because you’re not a dog.

If you type ‘clean living meaning‘ it usually comes up with links about clean eating.
Why?

Spot the pattern.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/clean-living

Not indulging in anything unhealthy or immoral.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/clean-living

conducting one’s life so as to be beyond moral reproach.

Origin from the era of the sexual hygiene movement.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/clean-living

used to describe someone who lives in a healthy and morally acceptable way, for example, by not taking any drugs:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/clean-living

having a wholesome lifestyle

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clean-living

leading a life free from immorality

99.9% of Hollywood wouldn’t meet the standard.

It is physical, yes, but is primarily about sexual immorality and respecting your body by not polluting it with drugs.

Link: Atheists don’t understand sin

DEFINE. YOUR. TERMS.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/atheists-dont-understand-sin.html

They think of legal/illegal, FEELS good/bad in the context of chemical reward/punishment.

9/10 modernist people cannot understand something as FEELING good and BEING bad.

They think they can talk their way around absolutes, like convincing a parent to let you binge on candy.

A+ comment

Whataboutism in morality

actually there is now an even more modern approach to “wrongdoing” that you are leaving out. You describe modern sins/wrongs as legally defined, but that is not really true any more: people define them “situationally”, based on moral relativism, not legally. So a wrong in our post-modern world is defined by hurting someone’s feelings (which happens based on their interpretation of the so-called wrongdoer’s acts/words) so wrongs have become entirely subjective. Legal definitions of wrongdoing are actually better than these subjective definitions, since the latter are open to gross abuse. So using your schema, there are 3, not 2, ways of defining wrongs: acts against God’s plan; acts against known laws or standards; and acts that may be neither but someone subjectively interprets them as hurtful…

no absolutes, arbitrary, subjective, nonsense, egocentric tat, ideological dross

Neoatheists: evidence is whatever they want it to be

atheistkult race genes

It’s like the new Satanism. Wanna rebel against your parents? Make up stuff about how humans were “evolved” for polygamy, to be Communists in large groups and reject the concept of belief as it applies to a singular divinity but conveniently not any of the surrounding concepts, virtues, rights etc. Never learn what a single piece of Negative Evidence could do to your specious arguments [boom, big boom]. If it pisses off Christians it must be right, because Christians never built anything worthwhile and you have all those fancy Atheist nations to point to, look how well they’re doing…

It’s like a stock reply I give now when I hear somebody did a heinous thing;

“Morally bankrupt? You mean an atheist.”

– and it’s true, they literally believe in nothing pertaining to religion (do not allow them to steal reclaim the good parts under some BS like ‘humanism’, fuck no it doesn’t wash, you use a Word you mean the Word); they are the philosophical, ethical equivalent of sociopaths. Totally amoral. Words like good and evil mean nothing without divinity, the examplar of them. It really winds up their hamster, you should try it.

BTW, there are many genes, asshole! Here’s one off the top of my head.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5741/1717.abstract

Since the inception of this internet thing, you don’t get to say “it doesn’t exist” in a pretentious nasal tone unless you go out and look for it, moron!

The Problem with Feminism in 4 sentences

  1. It is, simply put, a logical one.
You're not quirky. You're stupid with good fashion sense.

You’re not quirky. You’re stupid with good fashion sense.

2. There are a host of contradictions which make the entire ideology ruthlessly inconsistent.

3. I’d equate it to The Bible, the fervor initiates them and the zealotry of their fellows secure them for life binding around their very lives (friends, education, jobs).

4. There is no acknowledgement of fault, no solution to these deficits in coherence or resolution with complex clauses because feminists do not think with logic nor can they to pass, they think with and are blinded by naive self-interest and hot-blooded emotion.