"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

Wow. What an argument and accusation.It is statements like this that make Christians not credible when they talk about their religion. What do you think is the impact of telling people about your belief in the Gospel, when they find out that you believe literally anything else without the slightest bit of evidence, and often despite the evidence.Is that really what you believe? That Christianity is for the gullible and unquestioning?

My question was addressed to Phat's suggestion that we should not bother with the studies.Customer reviews on Amazon? Are those even real?

I know. You also believe in leprechauns so perhaps your methods should not be followed.

That's close enough. There are no leprechauns and there have never been leprechauns. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am not dismissing your opinion. I am dismissing your techniques for saying what is credible and what is not. You can form and hold any opinion you elect to hold. But I highly recommend that other folks use different methods to form their opinion. My opinions are subject to critique as are my methods of forming them. So are yours. You don't seem to have any problems ranting about folks not forming opinions based on watching the videos you suggest. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your reasoning is ample evidence of your critical thinking skills, such as they are. You don't just say they can manifest as demons. Your claim is that they did so. That's not Biblical.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just to drag this whole thing back closer to the topic of the thread. The start of the discussion here deals with you giving that same level of deference to sources other than the Bible. You don't seem to question any source after you've latched onto it.What you are taking as a personal affront is not personal. Almost nobody, other than you, would watch a youtube video and conclude that it was factual without doing some checking. If someone did do that and tried to post that crap here, folks here would be equally skeptical towards any such poster. The fact that you are physically unable to check, or just disinclined to check does not increase the chance that what you are watching is not utter crap. It just means that you cannot do a rational check.Over the years we have watch you latch onto superstition, ridiculous conspiracy theories, pseudo-science, bigotry and other claptrap using the techniques that you call thinking. You are pretty much a cautionary tale on why people should not form opinions without critical thinking. Every post you make reinforces that conclusion. You rarely demonstrate anything. You cannot bear the scrutiny that we would give anyone on a debate site.

This rebuttal does not bear any scrutiny at all. When Sodom was destroyed, innocent children including toddlers and infants were also destroyed. Even more of that kind of thing happened during the Flood. Innocent animals were destroyed as well. I have no idea why you even bother with these kinds of argument. That's not what the stories in the Old Testament would suggest. Some folks do not get a chance to obey or disobey. Sometimes God refuses to let Pharoah repent by hardening his heart.These are difficult portions of the Old Testament to deal with, particularly for literalists like you. But you cannot simply fake the funk here. Most people here, Christian or not, have read this stuff.

I don't have to be present to know that infants don't blaspheme, fornicate, curse God, or worship idols or to know that dead infants never did any such thing. Perhaps you should have used that argument instead of the one that you did use. If it is your position that nobody is innocent, then why even pretend that innocent people are being warned. You don't believe such people exist.

In short, your entire answer is to avoid doing any critical thinking when God is concerned. What is worse, you let that same attitude bleed over into stuff that is not in the Bible.You talk about innocence because you have no reason to be consistent. God did not give any of those dead infants even the slightest chance. There were a lot more of them than there were the family of lot. None of them had the slightest chance to accept or reject God. And the Bible explains why. It is because they are being punished for the sins of their parents, and not because of any evil on their own part. This notion of original sin that your ilk have grafted onto the Bible is not the explanation that is given in the text.So, this ridiculous notion that God "usually" gives the innocent a chance just does not describe the God of the Old Testament at all. Your notion is completely non-Biblical.Just to drag this stuff back to the topic. I don't give a crap if you can find your explanation duplicated in a youtube video, that does not make it right or even provide any evidence other than that there is one more idiot spreading nonsense.

This thread is all about those examples. You don't read anything critically. That's why you believe a bunch of BS.

Great. Please remember that thought the next time you encounter folks who give those experts less credence than you do.

Nobody rational is going to be convinced by a video. If you could grasp that concept, I suspect that the meta part of this discussion would be over. If something new is presented in a video, that is the starting point for really looking into that something and not the ending point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Great question. The reason for pointing out that videos are just a starting point is because your past behavior suggests that you act otherwise. I'd be happy to cite examples if you'd like. The reason for not doing so is to avoid the kind of topic drift that my first post caused. But if you really are up for hearing it, let me know.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am a little puzzled. I thought that Type II Diabetics did not take insulin. For that reason, I was very concerned when you talked about substituting a diet regimen for your education.When you are attempting tricks for maintaining your diet, I highly recommend that you monitor yourself often. The problem with diabetes is the effect out of control sugar levels has on the deterioration of our organs including kidneys, eyes, and heart over time. The longer you have uncontrolled glucose levels, the more damage you can accumulate. You don't want to run a lab experiment on any of that stuff without strict monitoring, multiple times a day. And if your favorite tricks are not working, you need to bail.Counter to what you have been saying, the mainstream advice is that it may be possible to manage the condition using diet and exercise. However, your doctor is probably going to make a call based on what you tell them, and what your levels are at the time you are seen. If your doctor is competent, then they are going to monitor your A1C levels over time and adjust your medication. You may be able to do better than that if you monitor often, and watch your diet, but your doctor's advice is likely the best possible with the limited information from your tests and what you tell him/her. There is no question that your doctor knows way more about the subject than you do.