Here is the link to this week's discussion and study material:

http://ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/10b/less12.html

Someone said the following in the Collegiate Quarterly, last quarter 1997:



A friend of ours uses to say that although health reform is very important, many preach salvation through soybeans.

Someone posted the following joke at Spectrum:



I know a different version of it which goes more or less like that:

Someone said it is a sin to eat meat.

Another brother pointed out to him that Jesus ate meat.

To which he replied, "Jesus did not have as much light as we have today."

I'm ovo-lacto-vegetarian, but use milk and eggs sparingly. I was surprised at the information shared in the Commentary on Sabbath School Lesson in Spectrum, by Dr. Brian Bull, a researcher and teacher and administrator (Dean, Department Chair) at the Loma Linda University, School of Medicine:

Interesting information.

This week's material also contains some interesting stuff.

Therefore, according to Ellen White, one should not teach a vegan diet, and is "an extremist" if one is a strict vegan. Furthermore, one risks death for it. Thus it seems that the health study proves her words once again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, that is as faulty a conclusion as if there is man-made global warming.

This is assuming a vegan diet is the equivalent of a healthy diet. While a healthy diet today does not include animal products, can vegans choose a harmful diet? That is, just because it is not from an animal, does that automatically mean it's healthful.

As said before, we are being attacked from multiple directions. While eating a diet of animal products is not healthy, if you are not diligent and specific, eating a vegan diet will not be healthy either. People choose to decide for themselves what is good for food, what is pleasant to the eyes (and taste buds), and they do eat. Letting senses and pleasure rule the day does not make one healthy nor wise.

kland,

I'm not sure which "conclusion" you might refer to, as I brought out several points. However, the points are all made by Ellen White, not me. With which of her points do you disagree, and why?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I understand your point here, kland, but according to Mrs. White, a vegan diet is not a healthy diet to begin with. You need to include milk or eggs to complete a healthful dietary, according to her. If you strictly eliminate all animal products, dairy, and eggs, you are adopting a diet which Mrs. White calls unhealthful and extreme, and she refers to this as bringing on a time of trouble prematurely.

I will provide some quotes in the next post. I will admit, these quotes have also surprised and educated me. I have eliminated dairy from my diet, but still use eggs of necessity for the B12. I wish I could eliminate them too, for they sometimes disgust me. But I have experienced, personally, a strictly vegan diet for almost a year, during which I lost my health and my mental acuity declined. Going back on eggs is what brought me out of my anemia, nourishing my blood. I was at that time unaware of these statements of Mrs. White, but after the personal experience and also seeing these statements, I am now firmly in the non-vegan camp until the Lord shows us decisively to abandon milk and eggs. That time will come. I don't believe it has fully arrived yet. B12 can only be stored by the liver for a few months, so eliminating all animal foods prematurely means you'll run out of B12 so much the sooner. Some people who never brush their teeth may be able to get by on the B12 production by the oral bacteria. In my case, such B12 would be inadequate. And I'm allergic to milk, and have felt better since I eliminated it. For those who can use milk, they may be able to eliminate eggs. It seems that from Mrs. White's counsel, however, one or the other is necessary for good health.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There are many more quotes along these lines. I will not attempt here to quote them all. But, as always, there must be a balance. While Mrs. White never tells us that the time has come to eliminate dairy and eggs from our diet, she does direct us to practice for when that time comes.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

True. But the conclusion was yours.
Specifically, "Therefore, according to Ellen White, one should not teach a vegan diet, and is "an extremist" if one is a strict vegan."
Which is not what you quoted from her.

When was that statement given, how long do you think it will be before that time arrives, how will you know when it arrives?

She says: "the doctrine of dispensing with them [milk and eggs] should not be taught." Tell me, kland, how can you teach a vegan diet without eliminating milk and eggs? I don't think I'm concluding anything other than the plain words of Ellen White here. Any open-minded reader here should see that my "conclusion" is really just the same as what Mrs. White herself said. As for being "an extremist," those words were in quotation marks because I had quoted them verbatim from Mrs. White. Again, those were her words, not mine.

In the end, I would hardly call my statement a "conclusion." More like an "executive summary" of the foregoing statements which I had quoted from Mrs. White.

This is a good question. A very good question, and worthy of an answer. To be honest, I think the best answer is this: trust what Mrs. White said. She said this: "when the time comes that it is no longer safe to use milk, cream, butter, and eggs, God will reveal this. No extremes in health reform are to be advocated. The question of using milk and butter and eggs will work out its own problem."

I cannot know when God will choose to reveal it. But He will. It will be God revealing it, not me deciding it on my own. If I were to decide on my own, I would prefer to abandon the animal products already. Yet, I know that I need the nutrition right now, and that no suitable substitute for the B12 exists for me. (I was getting B12 shots during my vegan year...to no avail. My body just did not assimilate it in that form.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That's misleading.
You quoted her as saying:
Do you see a difference? A very big difference of what you are saying? Maybe "conclusion" was not the right word. [suggested word deleted]

Again, misleading. According to Ellen White, what is being an "extremist"? Nowhere did she equate being an extremist "if one is a strict vegan". That's why I said this also was your conclusion.

Ok, the question I'm trying to ask is how will you know when God reveals it? Is it self-evident as what you decide on your own as being self-evident? What would it take for you to know that God is revealing it? A certain threshold of people dying from various diseases, self-inflicted appetite, 500 years, or what?

Ellen White, on the same page, says that "We know that when it
does come, the Lord will provide."
Provide what?
"In all parts of the world provision will be made to supply
the place of milk and eggs....The Lord will give dietetic
art and skill to His people in all parts of the world, teaching
them how to use for the sustenance of life the products of
the earth."
What products of the earth?
"When properly prepared, olives, like nuts, supply
the place of butter and flesh meats. "
There's the replacement for butter.
pg. 363: " In grains, fruit, vegetables, and nuts are to be found
all the food elements that we need. If we will come to the
Lord in simplicity of mind, He will teach us how to prepare
wholesome food free from the taint of flesh meat."
Is that "all the food elements that we need"?
Maybe further reading is warranted?


Would I be concluding correctly that if you don't live in a new country or a poverty-stricken district and where fruits and nuts are scarce, you should be urged to exclude milk and eggs for your diet?


In your own words, what is the health message, health reform? What changes does one need to make. Or are there any changes needed? It seems to me that the lesson suggests that no one need make any changes.


How much B12 does one need? How is that determined?
What will you do if you decide God reveals you should do away with animal products?

A person who has enough bacteria in their mouth to give an adequate supply of B12 probably has few teeth in his or her mouth. Id guess youll have better luck with feeding your intestinal bacteria flora..

For some reason which I do not fully understand, I have never heard it suggested that the intestinal flora could produce and provide B12. Is it because those flora work in an anaerobic environment? Is it because they are too far along the GI tract, perhaps because there is something to be accomplished in the stomach (intrinsic factor?) and the intestinal flora are already post-stomach? I don't know. I'm not a physician, nor an expert in this field. The so-called "intrinsic factor," as I understand, is something that helps the body assimilate and utilize the B12 from any source material it receives, and yet it is not well understood yet by the researchers, as I understand.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I struggle to see what difference you might be referring to, to be honest. You have also quoted but a portion of the fuller statement. Do you realize that in the preceding portion of the statement those words "these things" are given proper definition, and that they refer to milk and eggs? Given that "these things" is referring to milk and eggs, I see no significant difference in the two sentences which you have presented.

I think you must not have read all of the quotes I provided, for I'm nearly certain that I did quote something along this line (and I'm too lazy to go back and look, so I will just give another couple of quotes here).

From the statements above the following are clear:

1) It is not wrong to use eggs.
2) Eggs help to make good blood, and are perhaps even "necessary" for this.
3) The gentleman EGW was writing had eliminated eggs from his diet.
4) Ellen White called him "an extremist" for having done so.

Make your own conclusions.

kland,

Tell me how you can produce B12 by proper combinations of "grains, fruit, vegetables, and nuts" and then perhaps I will accept this as the only authoritative statement by Mrs. White on this topic. However, there are other statements, and they must be taken in balance with ones like this. In other statements, she indicates that eliminating milk and dairy can bring death. Further, she speaks of the very best diet as follows:


Now, kland, if I were to use the above as the single authoritative statement from Mrs. White on this topic, I would be forced to include milk in my diet and eliminate nuts, for she did not mention them. Do you see what I am getting at? Just because in the statement you found she did not mention milk and eggs it does not mean that these are not also necessary for good health. She has already said so in other statements, and it is necessary to take all of the statements collectively in order to understand properly.

The same is true with the Bible. The lesson brought out Paul's statements in 1 Timothy where he says:

If I wished, I could easily twist that one, as many do. But when taken collectively with other Biblical passages, we see that this "outlier" cannot mean quite what we might have imagined at first glance.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green,

Ahh...I see what you were getting at now. In any case, I still think we are in that "present" time period. Do you feel otherwise?

I do think, however, that it is our positive duty to be teaching healthful cooking and eating practices which are vegan. I just don't think we should be teaching people to abstain from milk and eggs. Perhaps it is to be an individual decision, based on individual conscience, or perhaps God will yet make it clear to the church as a body. Either way, I believe the time has not come for everyone to abandon milk and eggs, although it may have come for certain individuals who have stronger constitutions which are not dependent on these foods for proper sustenance.

In other words, I would not choose to condemn anyone for either a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet or a vegan diet, but if anyone tries to forcibly teach their own preference to someone else, that is where I would draw a line. Notably in the statement by Mrs. White where she referred to the gentleman as "an extremist" for not using milk and eggs, Mrs. White brought out the fact that others were learning from his example. One's influence matters. If all he had to affect by his diet were himself, perhaps she would not have used the term "extremist" to qualify his position on diet.

Hopefully we both understand each other's viewpoint better now.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It's our duty to teach it, but we shouldn't teach it?

My question was, In your own words, what is the health message, health reform? What changes does one need to make. Or are there any changes needed? It seems to me that the lesson suggests that no one need make any changes.


Which sounds like each deciding on their own.

What will change, what will indicate the "present" time has expired if 100 years is still "present" when she says the disease of animals was increasing in her day, how will you know? Maybe lightning falling from heaven? Or sky writing?

Do you think she had in mind 100 years for "near"? Do you think when people are taught to prepare food without the use of milk or butter, that would be the time?


But that's not true. However, reflecting on the last posts, I believe it will be tedious for me to show this to you also.


That "something" could be eggs and milk. Do you think that "something" could be something else?

Ignoring the milk and eggs for the moment, can you think of a vegan diet that isn't healthy?
A vegan diet is not the equivalent of healthy diet.

Likewise, do you think just eliminating milk and eggs from your diet gives a healthy diet? Or do you need to include some foods to substitute for those left out?

Or should we include that which is declared harmful because we just aren't ready to give them up yet?

The study referred to in the Spectrum article mentioned by Rosangela, of course assuming the preliminary results hold up as the data set are completed, shows that those participating vegan SDAs who are alive TODAY, fare no better than omnivore SDAs, also alive Today. Both of these groups are beaten hands down by those vegetarians who eat milk and eggs, and increasing the lead even further if fish is added to the diet. Therefore it seems a rather notional view to claim the time to stop eating milk, eggs and fish is now when our experience from those who have done so show that they do not gain any life expectancy related benefits from having done so.

It's our duty to prepare people for the time when milk and eggs will need to be wholly given up. There is nothing wrong with practicing a vegan diet for some meals. There is no reason one should eat milk and/or eggs for every meal. Some meals can and should be vegan meals. What we should NOT be teaching is that it is a sin to use milk and eggs and therefore forbid their use. I'm sorry if my statements on this have seemed confusing to you.

I won't speak for what the lesson may or may not be trying to suggest, but I think the whole concept of change requires of a knowledge of ones state before and after. If one is already eating only the clean meats, there is no change required to eat in accordance with Leviticus 11. If one is already eating a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, there is no change required to continue doing so. If you feel, kland, that everyone should already be at the vegan stage, I beg to differ, and if you truly feel that way, I think you are, in Mrs. White's words, "an extremist." It is one thing to choose for yourself a vegan diet, and entirely another to prescribe it for everyone else.

Yes, in a sense, it is deciding on their own. Allow me to quote from inspiration to clarify what I mean here.

As she puts it, one must have "common sense." Some people may be able to give up milk and eggs before others will. In fact, some people may find it necessary to do so on account of their health.

kland, there is no need to be sarcastically speaking of fire from heaven. Paul also believed Jesus was coming soon. He spoke to others in his day saying, "then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds," and John quoted Jesus as saying "behold, I come quickly." Does this mean that 2000 years are "soon?" Obviously, "soon" is a relative word and does not define a specific time.

It would be more than tedious because I have quoted Mrs. White to back me up, and she says what she says on it. It is true.

It is possible that we will yet find a suitable substitute, and Mrs. White alludes to this in her writings. I do not know of a vegan source of B12 which would be adequate to supply my body's needs. I may be able to find a good substitute for milk in food recipes that will still render them nutritious and palatable, e.g. coconut milk/cream, cashew milk, almond milk, etc. And I might be able to find a suitable substitute for eggs which will likewise render foods nutritious and palatable. I am not arguing that a vegan diet is not nutritious. What I am saying is that it is insufficient. For example, avocados and tomatoes are nutritious. But if my diet were composed solely of avocados and tomatoes, I would soon become malnourished, in spite of the fact that avocados and tomatoes are very nutritious. They might give me all of the Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Vitamin K, fiber, linoleic acid, linolenic acid and lycopene that I need, but they would be insignificant sources of some of the amino acids, B-vitamins, etc. In the same way, a vegan diet cannot include certain essentials which are found in milk and eggs, no matter how nutritious it may otherwise appear.

Where do you find that milk and cream from healthy cows are declared harmful? I think Mrs. White is not speaking of things which she herself had identified as harmful, but things which others were saying were harmful.

I think I have already pointed out the lack of B12 in a vegan diet. Can you tell me a vegan source for it?

There's an old missionary joke that goes something like this...
* * * * *
You can tell how long a missionary has been in the mission field by how he eats.

A new missionary, when he finds a bug in his soup, discards the whole thing. A missionary with more experience will remove the bug and keep eating. A missionary with long experience in the mission field will ignore the bug and eat the soup anyway. And when a missionary has been abroad for too long, he will look for bugs to add to his soup!
* * * * *

I know eating "bugs" is not "vegan," and yet there is some nutrition there. I sometimes wonder if our age of pesticide is hurting our health in some practical ways that people do not realize. I have said for several years now that I'd rather find half a worm in my apple any day! (It would tell me this apple was good for food, and not soaked in pesticides.) But perhaps the worm would be a source of B12 as well?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, Vaster, we agree. I would, however, not recommend the fish option on account of the toxins from polluted waters. (And virtually all waters are polluted now.) If I were to eat meat, I think I would rather eat sheep than fish.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The land and air is polluted too. An argument of avoiding toxic food means less when you realise that it is virtually impossible.

Vaster, that is partly true. However, there is another fundamental truth related to the food chain which is well-illustrated in the conservation of energy from one trophic level to the next. A graph of this energy exchange will look like a pyramid in which the creatures at the top have consumed the energy from all of those organisms below them. Whereas up to 90% of the energy is lost from one trophic level to the next, the toxins are preserved and concentrated.

Example: Suppose we start with a field of tomatoes that has been sprayed with herbicide for the weeds, and fungicide to prevent root rot, but somehow missed the pesticide application. Pests begin feasting on the sprayed plants and fruits. Caterpillars and cutworms are picked up by sparrows. Kestrels (Sparrow Hawks) eat the sparrows. In the first level, the caterpillars might have 0.05% concentration of the chemical sprays present in their fat vacuoles. The sparrows might then have 0.5% concentration in their livers. The kestrels, assuming a diet limited only to these sparrows, might have 5% concentration in their livers and some major health problems...because it is as if they had consumed ALL of the plant matter eaten by the caterpillars which had been preyed on by the sparrows.

(I'll admit that is hypothetical in terms of the numbers, and is not meant for anything more than an illustration. The fact is, chemical poisons do concentrate up the food chain very much like this.)

Fish that people eat are rarely the primary herbivore consumers. Most fish have themselves consumed smaller fish, which in turn have eaten the copepods, mosquito wigglers, etc. which have in turn eaten the aquatic plants and algae. So fish are relatively high in the food chain, which helps to account for their increased levels of toxins. The other factor is, however, that once pollutants flow into the sea, many of them concentrate there, not evaporating back into the atmosphere as water does. So the waters are often more polluted than our air or land vegetation.

Again, it is far better to eat a toxic tomato than to eat the chicken that ate all the caterpillars that ate the toxic tomatoes.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not sure you specified what Ellen White defined as an extremist.

So would you say your idea of health reform is to urge the people or prescribe them that there is "soon" coming a time where we'll have to give up things we enjoy, but as long as we are eating clean meats or a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, no change is required. That what the health reform, what the health message is, is that there is "soon" coming a need to change our ways, to go against our desires, but it's not yet, and probably won't be in our lifetimes. I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok. Peace and safety for everyone.

That's a relief. I thought I would have to change, but I can start eating what I desire, satisfying my pleasure. I mean, God wouldn't want us to sacrifice anything would He? I guess I misunderstood the health message. No wonder it's not preached from the pulpit as no change is required.

What would it mean if Jesus came soon in our terms? Isn't there something about Him delaying so that none need perish?

If you are going to make a comparison of "soon" with people perishing, how does that apply to what you are mapping it into?

I find it interesting that you did not answer how much B12 does one need, how is it determined?

But that is equating vegan with healthy. Can you think of a diet that is not healthy, but vegan?

How about some french fries, soda pop, beer, candy bars, the desert table at Adventist potlucks....

Well, except for the last item, aren't all of those vegan? Kind of along the lines of, isn't DDT organic?

Do you think some in the study are doing exactly what Ellen White was talking about when she said you must substitute for what you are giving up? As in, some people think being a vegetarian means just eating lettuce, some people think changing to vegetarian means just leaving the meat off the hamburger. By eliminating something from the diet, you have to put back in what you leave off. Being healthy is more than just eliminating things.

The study will eventually cover the life histories of 4000 adventist vegans. For the results to be wrong, you would have to postulate that a qualified majority of the adventist vegans who participate in the study are ignorant about the difference between being vegan and being healthy. DDT, bad for birds and it shares the tendency of everything we manufacture to stay around in the environment for a very long time. It also is the closest to a cure for malaria known to man. It is somewhat easier for us who do not see our family members die in malaria fever to make judgment on its use.

I am sure you can find some in the study who are SDA, live vegan and couldnt care less what Ellen has to say about it. But I do not think there would be many of them. In my experience, those adventist who eat vegan are among her more avid readers.

Matt 11: 28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

1 Cor 8: 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

alt:

8But victuals do not commend us to God, for neither if we may eat are we in advance; nor if we may not eat, are we behind;

alt:

8But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

There have been movements in the history of Christianity where the members have strongly believed in the need to sacrifice much to appease God. One example is self flagellation. They would agree with you. Certainly God expects a sacrifice from us to, well, something.

Why not leave such silliness behind and concentrate on what is important? Knowing Jesus and working for Gods Kingdom against Satans kingdom. This would involve "sacrificing your 'freedom' to sin", but would not involve "sacrificing your cultural habits I dont like". It is clear enough throughout the New Testament that food is not a sin question. Therefore it firmly belongs in the second category where kland is annoyed with Green Cochoa for having a food culture kland does not approve of. Oh well..

You do make a point there. However, since we are not (At least not in the churches I've been in) instructed in the health reform, I would say most have not a clue what health reform is. That and along with the majority of the population I am aware of think eating healthy to lose weight will be more expensive. I should qualify that in the developing world. The starving ones of the undeveloped nations would laugh at them.

I am in no way suggesting sacrifice is an appeasement to God. I am suggesting it is a cause an effect. If our bodies are temples of God, we should treat them with utmost respect. It has nothing to do with your food culture spin.

You are suggesting what you eat is not sin. I agree with you to a certain extent. However, is rebellion sin? For one to say, I don't care what Ellen White or the Bible says, I'm going to eat what I feel like? Unclean animals, too?

You also seem to suggest the health message is just a food culture. Is there a health message to you? Do you think health reform is just about personal choice of food or do you think there is a reason for it?

If the study is proper and accurate, I agree it does appear it adds nothing to health. Then the question becomes,
Why is it called the health message?

This thread deals not with health reform in all its splendour but with diet specific.

Are you claiming that starving people in the underdeveloped world are eating healthy?

I am suggesting putting your body to sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is in no way neither respecting it or honouring it as a temple of God. There are good reasons to be healthy, claiming it is a sacrifice to God is not one of them.

I am suggesting that Jesus and Paul clearly teach that what you eat is not a sin. I would further suggest that making statements which if true would call your Lord a liar is indeed a rebellion. Therefore, I am not saying "I don't care what Ellen White or the Bible says" considering that I am building my case on the words of scripture. Jesus words are, What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' Thus what you eat does not change if you are a sinner or not. Why you eat it might do..

If you do something without knowing why you do it, if you do something because "this is how we do things around here". Then you are indeed acting on culture.

If the study is proper and accurate, it does add up to a health message. Not just the health message you espouse. If Adventist omnivores and vegans have an early death rate of 95 % (presumably in relation to the general public), while Adventist lacto-ovo-vegetarians have an early death rate of 72 %, this clearly shows that there are health benefits to be gained when going from omnivore to lacto-ovo-vegetarian. The problem you are having is the find that you loose those benefits again if you take the further step and go vegan. There is a health message in that study, for all who are willing to see it. Dr Bull did predict it would be a find hard to swallow for many with a lifetime of habit invested in their present practise.

kland, it was all in the quotes I have provided. Ellen White was addressing a physician by the name of Dr. Kress who had, in order to be an example to others, become a strict vegan. In the process, Ellen White said he was depriving his blood of that which was necessary and essential, told him this diet made him an extremist which would bring harm, not help, to the message of health reform, and advised him to add eggs back into his diet, which he had taken out of his diet. Ellen White had so much to say in that paragraph that you do not see the words "extremist" and "eggs" juxtapositioned in the same sentence. The association is nonetheless there.

The doctor was an extremist for a couple of valid reasons: 1) he was being vegan just to be an example for others who, presumably, were still eating meat; and 2) the vegan diet he had adopted was insufficient to nourish him properly.

Ellen White said he needed eggs. What's more the manner of their preparation was, in my opinion, disgusting. "Get eggs of healthy fowls. Use these eggs cooked or raw. Drop them uncooked into the best unfermented wine you can find." The editors of the Manuscript Releases inserted this note into the text of Mrs. White's letter to Dr. Kress: "DR. KRESS ACCEPTED THIS COUNSEL. HE FOLLOWED THE RAW-EGG AND GRAPE-JUICE REGIMEN REGULARLY UNTIL HIS DEATH IN 1956 AT THE AGE OF 94."

Furthermore, in specific relationship to Dr. Kress' vegan diet, Ellen White wrote the following: "We appreciate your experience as a physician, and yet I say that milk and eggs should be included in your diet. These things cannot at present be dispensed with, and the doctrine of dispensing with them should not be taught." {12MR 169.1}

Clearly, Ellen White is teaching a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, and saying that a vegan diet "should not be taught." The only question which she leaves open upon the subject, and unanswered, is when will the time come for giving up all milk and eggs. She says that time will not come without two things happening: 1) proper substitutes will be found, and 2) God will reveal that it is time to give up milk and eggs.

Perhaps you have misunderstood Mrs. White's statements. She is clear that flesh foods need no longer be upon our tables. She makes a clear distinction between milk and meat, between eggs and chicken.

In addition, I have not said that I enjoy eating eggs. Naturally, to get the best nutrition, it is helpful to enjoy what you eat. Scientific studies have proven we get more benefit from something that we enjoyed. But to be honest, I no longer use milk at all, and I only use eggs of necessity. I do not particularly enjoy them...if I allow myself to think about where they have come from and what they are, I find them disgusting. Even more disgusting would be the "medicine" which Ellen White prescribed for Dr. Kress. Raw eggs in grape juice? Shudder. But it was necessary for his health, and God blessed his consumption of eggs.


Sarcasm, kland?

I don't understand what you are getting at, therefore, don't know how to respond. People perish for multiple reasons. Some perish sooner for adopting a vegan diet, when some eggs or milk might extend their lives. Some perish for lack of knowing Christ. Some perish physically. Some perish spiritually. Not sure which angle you were coming from.


kland, does it occur to you that I might not always have an answer? I am not a doctor, are you? In addition, B12 is one of those vitamins less understood by doctors as compared to many of the other vitamins. I do not know that we have specific "amounts" proscribed.

What I will say is this: Does one have sufficient B12 when one, for the lack of it, begins to experience tingling in the extremities, loss of taste, fatigue, loss of short-term memory, lack of appetite, etc.? I experienced all of these things toward the end of a year on a vegan diet. Eggs brought me back to normal after about three-months of their daily use. If you have B12 deficiency, you do not have enough of it, right?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here in Asia, I know extremely few vegans. About two, to be exact, among all of my Asian friends and acquaintances. Whether or not Asia is included in the "undeveloped nations," I know not. I'm not entirely sure that "developed nations" have any advantage in terms of health. There is a fraction of the heart disease over here on the diet of rice and vegetables as compared to the American diet. Even vegetarians or vegans in America eat plenty of things that Asians do not. Refined foods. Cakes. Pastries. Sodas. Fast foods. Certainly, a "vegan" can eat french fries and potato chips, right?

The Asian diet is largely starch based, and is not heavy on dairy but relatively heavy on fish and eggs. Other meats are much less used, more as flavoring in a dish of vegetables, which are in turn served over rice. Everything is rice. In Chinese culture, rice represents life. This is why some Bible translations have translated "bread of life" as "rice of life." I suppose Jesus might also have been tempted to convert the stones to rice.

I will say this: every Adventist vegan I know is well versed in Ellen White. Vaster was certainly correct on that assessment. I qualify "Adventist vegan" because some Buddhists are also vegan. Not in Thailand. And here in Taiwan, just certain times of the year for most of them. But there are a few who choose to eat vegan always. For the Buddhist vegans, they do not eat vegan on account of health, but on account of their religion. Those animals might be their own deceased relatives in another incarnation! If Adventist vegans choose their diet based on religion, they are not getting it from the Bible, and I question their balance in understanding Mrs. White's writings. If they are choosing on the basis of health (of which longevity is a prime indicator), then perhaps this Adventist health study will convert them to a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.

Agreed. We should treat our bodies with respect, and try to maintain our health in the best way possible irrespective of culture.

Agreed. The Bible is clear on the unclean meats, and there is no reason to consume them. I do not believe any of the New Testament statements is given to change the laws of clean and unclean meats, nor to authorize the use of all meats. Such interpretations are misguided and introduce contradictions to the Word of God.

If you are using "it" to refer to "a vegan diet," then I think you are mistaken about it being called "the health message." The "health message" simply refers to any part of our lifestyle which can be educated, changed, and improved to promote our own health and that of others. This "health message" includes such mundane things, for example, as getting pure air to breathe, getting adequate exercise and sunshine and rest, and not wearing too skimpy or too tight-fitting clothing. Nor do I see a vegan diet ever specified by Ellen White to have been a thrust of this health message. On the contrary, she has referred to some extreme measures as this as being more akin to "health deform" than to "health reform." This Adventist study, once again, proves the veracity of Mrs. White's statements and wisdom.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Most North Americans are fat. Not just fat, but obese. And not just obese, but morbidly obese. And many of them grotesquely morbidly obese to the point they cannot function. When asked to consider losing weight, they offer that they are poor and cannot afford to eat healthier.

Now maybe they are associating thinness with being healthy, I don't remember. Maybe "healthy" was the wrong word choice I made. Equating thinness with healthiness would be as bad as equating vegan with healthiness. They could be, but is not interchangeable.

The point they are making is
poor = fat
thin = rich

Because they are poor, starving people cannot get enough nourishment. They are not fat since they are poor and would laugh at N. Americans for using such a poor excuse.

I'm surprised you didn't understand that point.


I'm talking about sacrificing desire.
Do you think Eve should have sacrificed her desire?
Do you think David should have sacrificed his desire?

Interesting idea you proffer here. Many who eat swine offer the same. Whatever, it's your health.

Agreed. And were you suggesting that was what I meant?


So do you think Ellen White was wrong?

You've said what you think the health message is according to the study. What do you think the health message is according to Ellen White?


As in not sure what "silliness" you were referring to, but could your statement be applied to any desire? As in,
Don't tell me to stop smoking. The Bible doesn't speak against it. We should concentrate on what's important, knowing Jesus and working for Gods Kingdom against Satan's kingdom.

Think that could be applied to most everything?

Questions to ask yourself: First, is that what's important? Where did it come from.
Next, What is knowing Jesus and working for God's kingdom?

I guess you mean that anyone who does away with eggs is an extremist. I disagree that that's what she was saying. Guess I can't do any more here than what I've said to you and Vaster about "adding back in what was left out".

Yes, I agree. That "he had adopted".

Yes, he probably did. If he wasn't going to provide for what he left out, he needed to go back to eating eggs.

But wouldn't that be urging our cultural food choices upon others? What if one is "not ready" to give that up?

So, if I understand correctly, you don't know how much you need, you don't know how it would have been determined if you did know how much, and that it is not well understood. But yet, you somehow know that you need more, that you must eat eggs. Doesn't that seem strange to you? If something is that important for your health, shouldn't you be studying your best to learn as much as you can for the health of your body? (That seems familiar for some reason)

You imply doctors do know. But it doesn't seem you have asked them. How do they know, how do they determine how much you need? How do you know you aren't taking too much or not enough? I see you didn't mention anything about B-12 pills. Maybe too expensive, not available, allergic, weighs too much, or too hard to look for?


As far as symptoms you suggest, (and I really don't know if you are or not deficient as that's not what I'm talking about), I recently was looking up about brown recluse spiders. I've heard it commonly assumed that if you get bit by one, it's almost guaranteed that your flesh will rot off in a large area. However, a little looking shows that's not really true, that there are very few cases where that is really true. Maybe something else is going on.

Green, I was using "it" to refer to the health message. What is the "health" in the "health" message? Is it make strides, or think about making strides in the future but don't worry?

Have you not understood yet? But yet you quote the study....


It has dawned on me that perhaps the differences between us may have to do with this. Do you see what we eat affects our health? I think you do. Except you think eggs are necessary for health. Just don't urge it being necessary for others. Tell them to check into it for themselves.

Well, enjoy your eggs.

Im not american...Psalm 37:4
Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

You can sacrifice desire and live like a monk on penance. Or you can delight in the Lord and find glory in your desires.I was suggesting this is how it often is. Greenie has shown how this study and Ellen agree with one another. You may have noticed, where you quoted this sentence from, silliness refers to thinking there is anything you can give God through sacrifice. Is it that your confusion on this issue stems from not understanding the gospel?

Gal2: 15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

The order is clear, you hear the gospel, you believe the gospel and you recieve the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will lead you on paths of righteousness, not for your many good deeds sake but for Jesus names sake. (Ps 23)

Gal3: 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? What could possibly be more important than knowing Jesus and be known by Him?

kland,

Using "it" for "the health message" becomes....



I guess it makes even less sense to me now than if "it" had meant "a vegan diet." You don't think the health message adds anything to health? Small wonder your follow-up question, then.

At this point in the discussion, I think it appropriate to ask you how you know you are getting enough B12? What is your necessary requirement for it? How do you know you are reaching said requirement?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I came across this and just wondering if this is relevant here:

If listening more to Gods word in the bible than to you kland makes me hard-hearted in your eyes, so be it..

People should not be urged to exclude milk and eggs:
If they live in new countries or poverty-stricken districts where fruits and nuts are scarce.
If their blood-making organs are feeble.
If other foods to supply the needed elements cannot be obtained.
If eating milk and eggs, they should be from healthy cows and chickens well fed and cared for.

Implies, if not considered directly stated, milk and eggs are stimulating.
People in "full flesh" and children given to sensual habits should not eat eggs.
Eggs should not be "wholly" discarded, but somewhat discarded.
Eggs should be cooked. Which contrasts with eating them raw. What should conclude with the comment about the doctor eating them raw?

Can it be considered that if fruits and nuts are NOT scarce, milk and eggs should be "wholly" discarded?
Can it be considered that if you are in full flesh, milk and eggs should be avoided?
Can it be considered that if your blood-making organs are NOT feeble, milk and eggs should be "wholly" discarded?
Can it be considered that even if your blood-making organs are feeble, if other foods to supply the needed elements CAN be obtained, milk and eggs should be discarded in some degree if not "wholly"?



Reform should be progressive. How much have you progressed?
Disease in animals increase. How much since 1900? How much in proportion to wickedness of man?
Milk and eggs become more and more unsafe. How much unsafer now than 1900? If "now" was 1900, and milk and eggs were becoming more and more unsafe in proportion to the wickedness of man, what state of safeness do you think milk and eggs are in now?
Their place can be supplied with other things. What effort have you made?
People should be taught to cook without milk and eggs. How far is possible?


Not very long, disease is accumulating rapidly.
Hard to believe that accumulating "rapidly" in 1899, and 100 years later, it is still not very long and still soon before be have to give up any animal food.


Greatly diseased. Shall we not think that 100 years later, the animals are not even more greatly diseased? Shall we not think the Lord has let us know the time has come? Have we not those with dietetic art and skill in all parts of the world or should we think 100 years later, our knowledge of using the products of the earth has stagnated?


"Remedial" agencies. Have you been poisoned? Are you sick?
If not sick, should you eat eggs? If so, what about coffee mentioned on page 302?
Maybe this selection isn't meant for non-sick people.


In some cases, eggs are beneficial.
The time will come to wholly discard milk and eggs.
If people have little fruit, and cannot purchase nut foods,
and until we are to teach them to prepare health reform foods, they can eat milk and eggs.
Not eating milk and eggs is the most advanced proposition of health reform.

Do you have little fruit? Are you unable to purchase nut foods?
Are you teaching people how to prepare foods palatable, nourishing, and inexpensive?
If not, is that because you don't know or so they can continue eating milk and eggs?

Is it possible that the availability of a wide selection of fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts in season and out of season an indication that God has prepared a way for us to discard all animal products?
True, if you are in deserts of Africa (or wherever), you may have to rely on milk from goats (or whatever).

Are you in the deserts of Africa?

100 years later, they are even more distributed with better transportation and refrigeration.



Not best for his health.



One extreme is subsisting on air, not having nourishing food, lacking in proper elements.
By abstaining from "improper" foods, some neglect to supply other foods for supplying necessary elements.
There are equivalents to milk or cream. Possible implication is to make vegetables appetizing and tasteful.


Presented as a test or educating?
What about those who "educate" others that such "objectionable" things are not objectionable? Or says that by not partaking of such objectionable things is risky to one's life and says it in a general, absolutely, all encompassing, with no use in looking for substitutes?

Lest some think I was just making this up, I came across this today:

Good quote.