Napoleon on how Christ conquers.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

This is an excerpt from Ravi Zacharias’ “Jesus Among Other Gods” (Thomas Nelson, 2000) –

I was on the verge of quoting what Aleksander Solzhenitsyn once said, that the thin line between good and evil does not run through states or ideologies, but through the heart of every man and woman. … It is ironic, I think, that the city of Moscow bears the scars of the brutality of both Nazism and Napoleon’s exploits. There are reminders of what the Nazis did and markers of how far Napoleon came in his attempt to defeat Russia. Their names symbolize terror and war to the huge Soviet Empire. The still-vivid memories of their savageries make the Russian people ever skeptical of any power that threatens.

Yet, in an extraordinarily staggering statement about Jesus Christ, Napoleon said something that is almost unexcelled by any political leader. I quote it at length because of its incredible insight. … Napoleon expressed these thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, “Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?” The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:

“Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him. … I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than a man. … I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me … but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts. … Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others difficult to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man’s creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This it is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.”

Whatever else one may say in response, it is difficult to explain this away as mere eloquence. In fact, it was to counter mere eloquence and such artificial power that Napoleon said what he did. With unbelievable insight, he saw how Jesus Christ conquered. It was not by force, but by winning the heart.

Napoleon understood Jesus better than Pilate did. Pilate probably had no clue what Jesus meant when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” or how far into the future this Christ would conquer–and that, without the methods by which empires are normally expanded, of which Rome was a prime example.

---

On insanity and genius (some think genius necessary for greatness) – I’d rather be dumb, but good at loving, than a genius, and bad at loving. I know God’s love to cure insanity, whether one is dumb or a genius, or anywhere in between. Perhaps there is a correlation between screwed up love and insanity? An hypothesis. There are some people of low intelligence that are more emotionally intelligent than some people of high intelligence. I would rather be the former (with the greater capacity for love) than the latter. Without love, it matters squat what else you know.

[thezeus18]

Right. Minilove is more important than minipeace.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

I hear you loud and clear.

You think I should not have quoted Napoleon, who conquered by force, to talk about Jesus, who conquers the heart. But, given the context, and that his thoughts are in retrospect, I think he deserves a shot.

And I will admit I am small and make no claims to greatness apart from my God.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

The Jews did in-fact conquer by the sword continually. Christendom and Islam were both enforced and fought over, preached far and wide, replacing, destroying or converting many native races and cultures along the way.

Anyone can love; they do not need Jesus for that, but to gain and control a large cult one needs the exact opposite of love, and atop of it: the self-image of “perfect love”, an idealist under a totalitarian, the one whom promises armagedon soon; the inventors of hell.

@Ichthus

He asks for that which a philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted.

@Nietzche

Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology.

[Bob]

The Jews did in-fact conquer by the sword continually. Christendom and Islam were both enforced and fought over, preached far and wide, replacing, destroying or converting many native races and cultures along the way.

Anyone can love; they do not need Jesus for that, but to gain and control a large cult one needs the exact opposite of love, and atop of it: the self-image of “perfect love”, an idealist under a totalitarian, the one whom promises armagedon soon; the inventors of hell.

Dan,

this was one of your worse and most uninformed posts - better delete it, it ruins your average …

Shalom

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Bob

The Jews did in-fact conquer by the sword continually. Christendom and Islam were both enforced and fought over, preached far and wide, replacing, destroying or converting many native races and cultures along the way.

Anyone can love; they do not need Jesus for that, but to gain and control a large cult one needs the exact opposite of love, and atop of it: the self-image of “perfect love”, an idealist under a totalitarian, the one whom promises armagedon soon; the inventors of hell.

Dan,

this was one of your worse and most uninformed posts - better delete it, it ruins your average …

Shalom

Some are eager to cencor history; some are not.
Also there is a stark diffence between Christendom and Jesus as a person, for he would have not done half of what they have historically done.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology.

– Nietzsche

Such a heavily fortified defense mechanism is sure to protect one from the most dangerous Maybe… but will it keep one from spending the rest of their life insane? Not in Nietzsche’s case, anyway.

You talk of people dying over religion… you talk of Jesus not condoning it… but I’m not going there, because… then you talk as if you would do or condone all of the evil involved in running a cult. There is a definite conflict there.

But you bring up whether it is harder to “love” or to “gain and control a large cult”. [ On inventing hell… friendly warning… many inventors have been killed by their own invention. ] My answer is: it is harder to lift a bazillion pound rock. And?

You say anybody can love, that they don’t need Jesus for that. People cannot love without Jesus. Ever performed a dance-move before you knew who created it? Loving is Jesusing. Metaphorically speaking, I was a horrible dancer before Jesus saved me (and those around me, from me)… couldn’t even call it dancing, really.

[Bob]

Hi Dan,
So you say I “censor history” …

The Jews did in-fact conquer by the sword continually.

When were the Jews known as “conquerors”?

Christendom and Islam were both enforced and fought over, preached far and wide, replacing, destroying or converting many native races and cultures along the way.

Although I agree with you on this one, I think that it is too easy to just make this assertion without taking note of the internal struggles and the amount of Martyrs certain dynasties of the Church have created within its structures alone – thus suggesting that the Church was taken over as an institution to serve other means and the caretakers of spirituality were put aside or killed.

On the other hand, the Church or Islam were congruent with their peers in a violent world. There were too many things to fight about then; something that younger generations fail to understand when looking back – especially in the light of their lack of respect for the generations who struggled to bring about a European peace – and even an American (internal) peace if you like. The struggle lasted for generations and now, we abuse that peace dangerously.

Anyone can love; they do not need Jesus for that, but to gain and control a large cult one needs the exact opposite of love, and atop of it: the self-image of “perfect love”, an idealist under a totalitarian, the one whom promises armagedon soon; the inventors of hell.

If anyone could love, there would be a lot more of it around. Our problem is that we aspire to “love” without having recognised who we are. We flee into the duality that lets us hide here or there according to our whims, we lack the awareness that spans both sides of our brain, and repress the respective “shadow”. As we all know, psychological repression just has the problem we hope to lose that way pop up somewhere else, uglier than before. Such people can’t love – not in the way Christ meant. Therefore, it isn’t “control” but authenticity that is the historical problem you are referring to.

Those who try to control do so because they are weak, lacking authenticity and love. Those who follow such people are under the delusion that they too have control, they are “saved” and they have an idea of “salvation” that is theirs if they believe the right things and oppose those who believe the “wrong” things – even if they don’t really understand.

Reality has a few shades more than black and white …

Shalom

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

So anyways, christians generally say not to be gay, and to be heterosexual instead. That’s a pluss. That shows they have some right ideas.

But lots of them say you can or should only have sex with one woman at a time. That’s a minus. That makes me wonder if maybe the whole teaching was corrupted somehow, long ago.

Remember how in Israel it usedto be lawful to have more than one wife?

Well back then they were probably straiter.

They knew what they were doing, moreso, back then.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Bob, I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but you’re leaving something out.

The Jews were used by God to bring timely justice to the land of Canaan. That is how they came into possession of that Promised Land. They were conquerors, but only by the hand of God.

On the other hand, many attrocities have been committed under the guise of the Great Commission (spreading the Word) – which is to be done without the use of force. For example, when the Americas were “discovered” there was no resistance from the natives, but if they did not convert, despite their lack of understanding the language, they were often killed.

There is a saying about not judging a philosophy by its abuses. I think it applies here, though I’m not totally sure the word “philosophy” fits. “Message” may be a better word for the Word.

[quote]
they have an idea of “salvation” that is theirs if they believe the right things…

[quote]

In another thread I said “If you don’t have the right concepts, …” and it struck me as something that could be taken the wrong way (sort of reminded me of gnosticism’s “secret knowledge saves” gimmick). But it is true that some concepts/beliefs can prevent us from accepting other concepts/beliefs that more genuinely reflect reality.

It is not the job of Christians to oppose those who don’t believe. It is just our job to give them a chance to know Jesus or reject Him.

Dan–

A lot of trouble comes with having more than one wife. Jealousy between wives. Influenced into idolatry by a foreign wife. Multiply the nagging of one wife, the difficulty of keeping one wife happy, by the number of wives. And I say that because if you are multiplying wives, your priority is not a deep relationship, a soul-/mind-mate (time constraints do not permit this) – so you will be dealing with shallow wives that do not genuinely love “you” (rather than what you provide them with). You must also be able to handle the economic burden. King Solomon had his fill of all of that and it is just like having your fill of anything else – it gets old, or it consumes you. Both happened to him. God actually warns against it in the historical accounts.

People nowadays are sexually obese. Their drives have run amock. This is weakness, not strength. See my “Lapis Lazuli” thread for how genuine love takes more strength (I think I go into it there).

Other than that, I think this is a bit off-topic… and a topic I prefer to avoid. I don’t come here to talk about that… I come here to talk about more difficult topics of more importance. Count me out of this discussion…

[Jakob]

@Ichthus

Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology.

– Nietzsche

Such a heavily fortified defense mechanism is sure to protect one from the most dangerous Maybe… but will it keep one from spending the rest of their life insane? Not in Nietzsche’s case, anyway.

You talk of people dying over religion… you talk of Jesus not condoning it… but I’m not going there, because… then you talk as if you would do or condone all of the evil involved in running a cult. There is a definite conflict there.

But you bring up whether it is harder to “love” or to “gain and control a large cult”. [ On inventing hell… friendly warning… many inventors have been killed by their own invention. ] My answer is: it is harder to lift a bazillion pound rock. And?

You say anybody can love, that they don’t need Jesus for that. People cannot love without Jesus. Ever performed a dance-move before you knew who created it? Loving is Jesusing. Metaphorically speaking, I was a horrible dancer before Jesus saved me (and those around me, from me)… couldn’t even call it dancing, really.

Yours is merely one of the hearts Jesus subjugated. That does not mean there are not people with unconquered hearts who love freely.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Ichthus

Bob, I’m not saying you’re totally wrong, but you’re leaving something out.

The Jews were used by God to bring timely justice to the land of Canaan. That is how they came into possession of that Promised Land. They were conquerors, but only by the hand of God.

The Nazis were used by God to bring about a timely justice and kill the Jews, atleast some of them.

[Xunzian]

To be fair, it makes perfect sense for an agrarian society to condemn homosexuality. After all, for farmers, children = workers. The more, the better. Naturally, there is a dark side to this, if there is direct inheritance (such as the Jews advocated) there is extreme competition between brothers (Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel, ect.) or if they divide the property equally power becomes diluted and that leads to a whole mess (see: the entire history of Great Germany, specifically Carl the Great and his descendants). In urban situations, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense for homosexuality to be tolerated – non-breeding pairs are neutral in cities and even become beneficial once they become overcrowded.

As a general rule, follow the type of society and you’ll see the mores that you’d expect.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@Xunzian

To be fair, it makes perfect sense for an agrarian society to condemn homosexuality. After all, for farmers, children = workers. The more, the better. Naturally, there is a dark side to this, if there is direct inheritance (such as the Jews advocated) there is extreme competition between brothers (Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel, ect.) or if they divide the property equally power becomes diluted and that leads to a whole mess (see: the entire history of Great Germany, specifically Carl the Great and his descendants). In urban situations, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense for homosexuality to be tolerated – non-breeding pairs are neutral in cities and even become beneficial once they become overcrowded.

As a general rule, follow the type of society and you’ll see the mores that you’d expect.

Well-then, farmers are strait and cities are gay.
I never knew this before, but now I know.

I suggest that city-life be abolished and all persons become self-sufficient, independant, heterosexual agrarians again.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Yours is merely one of the hearts Jesus subjugated. That does not mean there are not people with unconquered hearts who love freely.

–Jakob

I never said I love compulsively, against my will.

The Nazis were used by God to bring about a timely justice and kill the Jews, atleast some of them.

–Dan

Hitler was a mystic and we all know how that ended.

To be fair, it makes perfect sense for an agrarian society to condemn homosexuality. After all, for farmers, children = workers. The more, the better. Naturally, there is a dark side to this, if there is direct inheritance (such as the Jews advocated) there is extreme competition between brothers (Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel, ect.) or if they divide the property equally power becomes diluted and that leads to a whole mess (see: the entire history of Great Germany, specifically Carl the Great and his descendants). In urban situations, on the other hand, it makes perfect sense for homosexuality to be tolerated – non-breeding pairs are neutral in cities and even become beneficial once they become overcrowded.

As a general rule, follow the type of society and you’ll see the mores that you’d expect.

–Xunzian

There was homosexuality in early Jewish history, or there would have been no law against it (and there was). But, what goes on within the individual of the agrarian or the urban society that influences them toward heterosexuality or homosexuality? Here is a paper I got a 95% on in my critical thinking class… the issue in question is “Is sexual preference decided by biological factors?”

People decide their sexual preference depending on how aware they are of their options and of their ability to choose, with social norms and biological predispositions playing an influential, but not a determinate, role in the decision.

Arousal, subject to biological predispositions, is involuntary, but a conceptual framework shapes the way input is interpreted, and accepted or rejected due to volition.  All humans have the capability of being aroused by either sex**.  This does not mean we are all bisexual by default (by nature, at birth).  Bisexuality is a developed preference.  By default we have not yet developed preference.  A conceptual framework or attitude or schemas which includes sexual preference is not present at birth, but is acquired over time after many experiences.  How a human’s experience is different from the experience of other organisms, including other humans, is determined by how a human is biologically different from other organisms, including other humans, and by their environmental differences and the resulting differences in their conceptual frameworks (if the organism is capable of developing a conceptual framework).  Social norms influence a person’s conceptual framework.  The more we see homosexuality and bisexuality become socially accepted, and the more that information is integrated into the conceptual frameworks of individuals, the more likely a person will make a homosexual or bisexual interpretation if arousal results from input, and the less likely they will reject input interpreted as homosexual or bisexual, especially if they have been taught that their preference is determined biologically, though it is not.  Different cultures can develop preferences for extremely different tasting foods, and individuals within such cultures are not bound to those preferences, but instead can acquire the preferences of other cultures, and the same is true of sexual preference.

If certain input (grasshopper) is interpreted as nonsexual (not for food), even though it causes arousal (hunger pangs in someone who has very little access to food), because there is no sexual conceptual framework within which to interpret it as sexual (the person and the person’s culture has never considered grasshoppers to be food), the arousal will most likely not factor as sexual attraction (the grasshopper will most likely conceptually remain non-food to the person, unless they are some sort of culinary genius).  On the other hand, if certain input (grasshopper) results in arousal (hunger) and is interpreted as sexual (for food), because it is recognized as such in accordance with one’s background information (the person and the person’s culture consider it food), but within a sexual conceptual framework that rejects that certain type of sexual input (the person and the person’s culture consider it repulsive food reserved for those being tortured), the arousal will not be considered preferred sexual “attraction” (if the person eats it as a last resort or because they are forced, they won’t like it, though they may acquire a preference for it over time, considering it appeases their hunger pangs – then again, they may come to hate it even worse, as in the case of p.o.w.s who hate rice).  

Regardless what input a person receives from their body, they have the ultimate decision on whether to accept or reject that input.  It is not wise to ignore hunger pangs (the need to affiliate very closely) indefinitely, but it is possible to make your body wait until it is more convenient for you to eat (practice sexual discretion).  [b]It is also possible to choose healthy food (sex within a lifelong relationship) over junk food (casual sex), though one’s body may crave junk food over health food.[/b]  One can sarcastically say to one’s body “You may want that, but I don’t want that because it is bad for me.”  Another example is alcoholism.  Genetically, some are more prone to alcoholism than others, but that does not determine that they will choose to become alcoholics and surrender willingly to their predisposition.

Social norms and biological factors, though they may influence sexual preference, do not necessarily determine it.  As is the case in all other preferences, each individual is capable of exercising volition in their sexual preferences, despite genetic factors and social norms, as far as they are aware of their options and their ability to choose.  

** “… Bem maintains, …every child, whether conforming or nonconforming, experiences ‘heightened physiological arousal in the presence of peers from whom he or she feels different.’” [Bem, D.J., Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103(2), 320-335)]. Note: Though the theory agrees preference is developed, it does not factor choice into the development. I therefore do not adopt it as-is. Source of quote (which I do not endorse): news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/9 … ation.html

Christians consider homosexuality to be “junk food” (more like rat poisoning inside the junk food). The Spartans, a warring society, practiced homosexuality between warriors, and, what’s worse, trained up their young boys in it. They actually thought it made them stronger.

But, are they around to boast about it now? Nope. But that’s not really the point. The point is love, which is a strength more important (in an eternal sense) than any other kind of strength.

Naturally and spiritually we function normally when we keep sex within the bounds of heterosexual marriage, and self-destruct (individually and as a society) when we go out of bounds. It’s like following the rules on the bottle of a prescription drug. If you need it, take it, and enjoy the benefits. If you don’t need it, stay celibate. If you take too much, there will be side effects – regardless if you think you can handle it.

[Bane]

@Ichthus

… will it keep one from spending the rest of their life insane? Not in Nietzsche’s case, anyway.

I get annoyed at ad hominem attacks on Nietzsche’s ideals because he went out crazy. I think that all of the geniuses of the world had to be a bit crazy to have their breakthroughs. It is us very sane-normal-robot-people that do not add any color or new creative thought to the world. God bless the insane geniuses! Without them, us sane people would be lost! I hope I go out crazy!

[Bane]

@Ichthus

Here is a paper I got a 95% on in my critical thinking class…

It must have been a tough class…
Did you add your opinion to the following nature vs. nurture post?
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 4&start=25

[Xunzian]

Of course it was around, that is why it was condemned, which is what I said in my post. Homosexuality simply is, so one would expect it to be expressed in all walks of life. I also agree that society does play a role, and that people are born with no particular preference; however, as soon as they hit puberty that changes quite quickly. Look at what happens with children that are born intersexed. They spend their childhood being quite well adjusted to the gender they are raised as, but as soon as they hit puberty, there is a 50% chance that they are in for quite a nasty surprise!

As for conflating homosexuality with casual sex thereby rendering them both “junk food”, well, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. Though I will point out that “junk food” is bad for us precisely because it is what our bodies crave. The trick, it seems, remains in finding a balance between those disparate elements.

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

Of course it was around, that is why it was condemned, which is what I said in my post.

– Xunzian

Sorry. Missed that.

Homosexuality simply is, so one would expect it to be expressed in all walks of life.

I don’t know about that. It is found in nature (among non-human animals), that is agreed, but not the sort of homosexuality you find between humans. A lot of things are found in nature that we would not condone between humans. Do you mean ‘normatively’ expect? Would that not be the naturalistic (is-to-ought) fallacy?

Look at what happens with children that are born intersexed. They spend their childhood being quite well adjusted to the gender they are raised as, but as soon as they hit puberty, there is a 50% chance that they are in for quite a nasty surprise!

– Xunzian

It’s not quite that simple. Different things contribute to someone being born intersexed. Sometimes it is obvious to them as soon as they are able to know that girls and boys have different sex organs, and what the normal ones look like. Many do not feel well-adjusted to their nurtured genders – even people not born intersexed can feel that way. Certain conditions gaurantee what will occur at puberty. I advocate no corrective surgery until the individual is of the age to make that decision themselves (unless the surgery is medically necessary). The gender they should be nurtured into should correspond with the sex traits they will manifest at puberty. If the condition goes unknown until puberty, then it should be up to the person what gender they maintain or take on at that point. If they are nurtured into a gender that is neither hyper-masculine, nor hyper-feminine, the life-change at puberty, if any, will not be as devastating. They should marry someone of the opposite gender, who is understanding of all of these issues. Or, if they choose, they should remain celibate, and only develop close, non-sexual friendships. Often times the severity of the condition rules out normal sex and bearing children.

This does not impact the issue of homosexuality. And junk food isn’t bad because our bodies crave it (drives and cravings are not bad, the lack of controlling them is bad). Junk food is bad because it is loaded with stuff that has negative health effects and few positive health effects. This whole conversation is kind of a bummer. I prefer to look at the positive when I can – if you focus on that, there’s no room for the negative to spoil the view. I prefer to focus on how blessed I am in my marriage, and cultivate that relationship, rather than pondering all the mud-wallowing that messes up healthy marriages. Rather than focus on junk food, focus on healthy food. I will gladly agree to disagree, if you prefer that’s how we conclude.

---

Bane, If you yourself would not have given someone a 95% for what I wrote (it was the very first homework assignment, and not an actual essay assignment – we were only supposed to spend an hour on it), feel free to explain why. I bet you graduated from a well-known school. How are you using your education?

Hm. Is there something weird about saying what grade you got on a piece of writing? Am I breaking some social taboo or something? I’ll nix that.

I hope I go out crazy!

Be careful what you wish for.

[Xunzian]

I tend to stay in the human realm when discussing homosexuality as opposed to appealing to nature. Not because I don’t think that it represents a valid argument, in this case I do, but because I think it involves a good deal of insincerity on both sides. Whether homosexuality was found in nature or not, I would find it natural for humans; and whether homosexuality were found in nature or not, you would oppose it. As such, I think that it basically drops out of the discussion, good enough for me but not applicable for others.

That means we ought focus purely on the human end of the equation, which brings us to the intersexed discussion, I do agree it is a complex issue, that is the point. However, it does show that the genetic element plays a huge role in sexual preference. Indeed, it seems as though the genetic element plays a much strong role than the social element – so much so that the social element can absolutely fall out of the equation.

So, from my perspective what I see is a behavior that has a strong genetic component and is harmless. Now that is where we disagree. Since I see nothing wrong with sex for sex’s sake and I actually see beneficial aspects to non-reproducing pairs, and I see allowing people to harmonize themselves with a harmless aspect of themselves as exceedingly beneficial as opposed to forcing anomie by divorcing themselves from an inherent part of themselves.

As for junk food – you are pretty wrong there. In modern society, on the modern diet, living the modern lifestyle what you say with respect to junk food is true; however, the problem throughout most of human history has been less about seeing proper balance of nutrients and more about getting enough calories to survive. We are biologically programmed to find a 40/60 fat/sugar mix pretty much the perfect food. Applying modern problems to evolutionary situations can create some pretty wild artifacts, but those shouldn’t be mistaken for the baseline.