It is said that religion is nutrition for the soul; while food is nutrition for the body. Are the various religions across the world any different from foods of geographically widely distributed societies? Here is a further explanation of the analogy. This analogy may apply to lot more issues in life than religion. People in different parts of the world have been eating different food ingredients from time immemorial. The varying food ingredients depend on what is locally grown in the regional environment. No one society's food is superior that another. There are / have been many foods that have been transplanted from one part of the world to another. There are many food ingredients that are imported and exported. Each society has developed their own 'balanced cuisine' which over generations and centuries has been perfected. This is because the good recipes and practices are passed down and the not so good food combination 'died on the vine' as a form of "survival of the fittest."
Yet a meal (a combination of various food ingredients) of all enduring social groups are a HEALTHY BALANCE of the SAME BASIC REQUIREMENTS - protein, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, fiber. The sources of these basic requirements are in DIFFERENT food ingredients in the various societies. So as an example as a source of GOOD carbohydrates, Italians eat pasta, Irish eat potatoes and Asians eat rice. And I encourage all my patients to avoid the BAD carbohydrates (simple sugars) which may taste good - yummy. Many people SWITCH their diets as they experience new environments and in some cases they do a mix and match. So in the West, an increasing number are becoming vegetarians. And in the East, an increasing number are becoming non-vegetarians. And in each country, some move from one diet to another. Yet some, in developing their own 'fusion cuisine' may have too much to eat and others do not have a balanced diet. So within a society where food is available in abundance, we see the self-generated pathologically obese and the pathologically emaciated. Then there are a few who have their own theories about where to get 'truly healthy food', because what is sold in the major grocery chain stores is "not healthy". Yet, the best teacher of good food, good eating and cooking habits are passed down by our mothers, who transmits down what she learnt from many generations that preceded her. I am no nutritionist. Yet, from my knowledge, quite a few people eat what they like and when they like - NOT what they need (which they may or may not know). Many of them have a body that will, to some extent, compensate for a diet that is not balanced. Yet sooner or latter, two things (among others) are likely to happen, especially to self-experimenting amateurs about nutrition. 1. They are MORE LIKELY to get ill. This does not mean people who eat a normal diet do not get ill. 2. When they get ill, their eating habits, (what they want rather than what their body needs), makes recovery more difficult. Does this analogy about normal diets and self-designed diets have any parallels to other aspects of life? The current fad, or a fad that one decides to create based on the latest interesting book or the glossy-cover magazine one reads may or may not stand the test of time. I will let the readers make their own determination on this dietary analogy as it pertains to their own personal experience and perspective. Kind Regards, GL ----------- Albert Desouza I compare religions to a prism. Each face represents a religion which ultimately will reach a tip that is God. If prism is too small take a pyramid. No one has the authority to say that his religion is the right one and will attain to him or her salvation and other religions will take you no where.
