I just came across a great (horrible?) example of what I was talking about last month. My main premise in that post was that we need to be careful about what we call biblical due to the weight of that statement. We also need to be judicious in our use of Scripture to support a theory or idea. For example, teaching that the biblical way to find a wife is by going to the local drinking hole using Rebekah as the basis is not a good use of Scripture.
Well, Maker's Diet is a doozy. It comes with claims like
Biblically based and scientifically proven.
When you follow The Maker's Diet, you'll be adhering to God's original eating plan!
Our Creator specifically designed us to function best on The Maker's Diet.
On their website I saw grand, unsubstantiated claims, little knowledge of history, and a strange understanding of what it would mean to go back to our original diet (London Broil anyone?).
Comments
It's so weird you bring this up...Since I've been having my...um...digestive difficulties, at least two people have strongly recommended the Maker's Diet to me. I have been meaning to check our library for the book, but haven't yet. Those are some strongly worded claims, but overall it probably would be healthier to eat like they did in Bible times--lots of grains, fruits, some fish, and very little fat content. As with any information I come across, I'll take what I like from it and leave the rest behind...Are you suggesting that there could be something dangerous in following the diet the book recommends, or are you just complaining about their advertising style??
Posted by: jess on Saturday, February 18, 2006
From what I know of the diet, it sounds just like the other fad diets out there like Atkins or South Beach except that it adds kosher restrictions (no pork, lobster) and a little more weirdness than normal (homeostatic soil organisms). The advertising claims seem out there. "God's original eating plan" is defined as the ceremonial laws given to Moses. "Scientifically proven" - never heard that before! I have no way of judging the content without access to the whole book (I read excerpts on Amazon).
What would Jesus eat?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Saturday, February 18, 2006
How come I haven't seen a John the Baptist diet?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Sunday, February 19, 2006
I didn't notice you running after any locusts when they were around last summer....we have the honey...
Posted by: shannon Costello on Sunday, February 19, 2006
How about a diet of worms?
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Worms and brussel sprouts -- it's all in how you prepare them (saute lightly in butter, not too much salt, I'm thinking).
Posted by: Tara on Thursday, February 23, 2006
ha ha ha to the diet of worms.
Posted by: shannon Costello on Saturday, February 25, 2006
have you ever heard of the hallelujah diet?
it's basically an 85% or more raw food vegetarian diet...based on the Bible...you know, like what Adam and Eve and all those pre-flood people ate...
oh! plus carrot juice made with their pricey juicer....(now, where *did* Methuselah get his juicer i wonder? :) )
i personally can't knock these diets, though...i think my diet is comprised of .05% raw vegetables...
but i've been wondering lately about the marketing of products to Christians in general...
Posted by: kiki on Monday, February 27, 2006
The ads in World Magazine for herbal products that cure cancer have certainly bothered me.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Monday, February 27, 2006
My fave world ad:
the exercise machine that costs something like $14,675. the claim is that you can use it 4 minutes per day and get fit.
Posted by: kiki on Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Kiki is not exagerating: take a look.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, February 28, 2006
There are two possibilities why these pathetic ads end up in World:
1. The advertisers think Christians are a bunch of suckers - or at least have more suckers among them than average.
2. The advertising rates for World are low enough so that these advertisers can afford them.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Tuesday, February 28, 2006
I think I'd go for a combination of those two factors...but with #1 much more heavily weighted.
Posted by: Shannon on Monday, March 6, 2006