Login to view embedded media
Swish. Nailed it.

I'm starting to wonder if the whole strategy of nominating Harris for VP was to pick someone who would make an aging and mentally deteriorating Biden look smart.

I mean...wow.

You get what you vote for people.

I just watched a vid where the guy says that he asked his 90 yr old mother if she thought the earth was round or flat , and she said it was flat , said she learnt that in school.

So I asked an 80 yr old friend of mine the same question , and she said it's flat too , and that that's what they taught her in school. She said if it was round we would fall off you idiot...lol

So I said well when I went to school they taught us the earth was round , and we were both left scratching our heads....
So if there is anyone here aged around 80 plus , what did they teach you in school , round or flat earth?

Please let's not make this another flat earth thread , there is enough here already.
I'm more interested in what we were taught at school , and at what point did they cease teaching flat earth to teaching round earth.

My daughter works in aged care and said she would help by asking her elderly customers. Looking forward to the results of that , should be interesting.

Michele Bachmann: Tim Walz is 'as radical as AOC or more'​

(Member of Congress served with Kamala's VP pick for years)

Former Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, now dean of the Robertson School of Government, served with now Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for years.

And after Kamala Harris tagged Walz as her pick for the Democrat party's nomination for vice president, she spoke out.

"I went to Congress with Tim Walz in 2006 and served with him for 8 years. On the outside, he looks like an awe-shucks, back slapping, nice guy politician, when in fact he is as radical as AOC or more," Bachmann said.

She said, "Because of Tim Walz, more people have moved out of the state than at any other time in Minnesota's history. Last year, $2 billion and 30,000 people left the state of Minnesota." And she noted Walz promoted "the strongest transgender protection bill in the country and the strongest pro-abortion bill in the country."

Can you guys please pray for my dad his name is Michael for complete healing and for him to be walking in his healing and being completely obedient to God and that he lives and not dies all the days of his life can you pray for my sister Micah that God will give her a raise in her job that she would get a significant raise and that God heals her and forces her to be obedient and righteous to God all the days of her Life and if you guys can pray for my mom that God heals her body all the days of her life and that she stays completely obedient to God and that she will be completely obedient and righteous and that she lives and not die all the days of her life and can you pray that whole entire prayer for my sister and brothers genesis,zaniah,justice,jolane, jabez,jp,billie, and me and can you pray for my brother zion that God heals him and forces him to be obedient and righteous all the days of his life and that God forces him to the Dr. And that God heals him completely all the days of his life and that God finishes his will in our lives and that God takes all our pain away all the days of our life

As usual, Charlie Kirk does an amazing job at highlighting everything that Tim Walz has done, and everything that Tim Walz is... and everything that Tim Walz has done here in Minnesota has been disastrous, catastrophic, and has been a blunder for the state of Minnesota.

Charlie Kirk: Everything You Need to Know About Kamala's Minnesota Marxist VP
Login to view embedded media

Can you express why you are supporting your third party candidate? What does he/she stand for, what has he/she accomplished that garners your vote over the Democrats and Republicans?

For myself, I may vote 3rd party, cos I am tired of the woke stuff, but also not a fan of the rhetoric from the current Republican party.

American Solidarity Party:

Libertarians:

List of 3rd party candidates:

That’s just evil. But she’s the Left’s darling.

Blurb available here on the “Editorial Reviews” tab:

The word “fascist” gets thrown around a lot in politics, but it’s hard to find a more apt one for “Unhumans,” which came out last month. The book argues that leftists don’t deserve the status of human beings — that they are, as the title says, unhumans — and that they are waging a shadow war against all that is good and decent, which will end in apocalyptic slaughter if they are not stopped. “As they are opposed to humanity itself, they place themselves outside of the category completely, in an entirely new misery-driven subdivision, the unhuman,” write Posobiec and Lisec.

The piece goes on to describe the book’s adulation of Franco, Pinochet, and McCarthy; and quote Vance saying that the US needs a de-Baathafication-like purge to rid us of wokeness.


Other endorsements come from Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr., a key figure in his father’s presidential campaign. The foreword is by Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist.

Ten minutes of video provide a basic answer to the thread's question. The answer is no. Here is the video.
Login to view embedded media

---

Transcript:
The Catholic Church and Science have had a… tumultuous history,
as the Church is generally afraid of science and persecutes anyone who challenges the
Bible with science. It did so with Hypatia, Galileo, and Giordano Bruno, to name a few.
Or… so the story goes. There’s just one problem: these stories are myths.
While there have definitely been conflicts between individual scientists and the
Church over the years, with some of them experiencing harsh punishments for their work,
the idea that the Church has ever had anything wrong with science in itself is completely false.
What actually happened with these three,
and what can we say about the Church and science today? This is Catholicism in Focus
———
We begin with Hypatia, a fifth century woman known for her work as a neoplatonist philosopher,
astronomer, and mathematician. Although not the first female professor in Alexandria,
she is the earliest for which we have any reasonably well-kept records of her life.
It’s no wonder, then, that modern people have held her up,
not only as a scientist, but as a strong feminist icon.
It’s no wonder that her brutal, unjust death would be remembered so many centuries later.
As the story goes, she was attacked by a mob of Christians, incited by Cyril,
the bishop of Alexandria, because of her philosophical teachings against Christianity.
She was torn limb from limb, scraped to the bone, and then burned. A martyr for philosophy,
the last of the Hellenes, a symbol of Catholic oppression of free thinking.
At least, these are things that were attributed to her in the 19th century,
1500 years after her death. The reality is that she was never perceived as a martyr in her
time because her death had nothing to do with science or religion.
Although a pagan and a philosopher, there appears to be no conflict between
her teaching in Alexandria and Christians prior to this moment. She was well regarded
for her tolerance towards Christians, and even taught them in her school.
There was also nothing fundamentally problematic about her branch of philosophy—neoplatonism was
actually a preferable branch of philosophy at the time for Christians, taken up by key
figures like Origen, Psuedo-Dionysius, and most notably, Augustine of Hippo.
When you’re a pagan on the side of Augustine, the Church is going to like you.
The problem, and what ultimately led to a mob violently ending her life,
was her politics. Historians say that she was well-connected in the political
world and often found herself in league with ambitious and ruthless men. This
would ultimately lead to her demise when she crossed paths with Cyril.
Although canonized a saint, he bears the mark of a very flawed, very violent man,
fraught with controversies. He used force against the Jews in retaliation for persecution,
fought nasty theological battles against the heretic Nestorius, and engaged in a
violent feud against with Prefect Orestes, who represented the moderate camp of Christians.
According to Neoplatonist historian Damascius, this is what led to Hypatia’s demise,
as she was his close friend. Cyril incited a mob against her and she was brutally killed.
Meaning, that her death had nothing to do with science. She was not persecuted for any of her
scientific beliefs—she died because her politics conflicted with a violent man.
Was this man a bishop? Yes. Is that a good thing for the Church? Absolutely not. But
it doesn’t provide a drop of evidence that there is a conflict between the Church and
science. It just shows that some of the people who led the Church were bad men.
In her time, she was not seen as a martyr for science or as someone
in conflict with the Church. This did not appear until the 18th and 19th centuries,
when her story was revived as a powerful symbol of an anti-Catholic scientific movement.
The same can be said about the Giordano Bruno,
the Dominican Friar and priest often regarded as the first martyr for science.
Born in 1548, he was ordained a priest at the age of 24, and spent a number of years studying,
wandering Europe, and publishing works. He was interested not only in science,
but in mathematics, philosophy, poetry, and theories regarding the cosmos. He was
among the first to defend the then-controversial Copernican
model of the Universe, and wrote about his belief in the plurality of worlds.
In 1593, his beliefs caught the attention of the Roman Inquisition,
and he was arrested. After convicted in trial in 1600 he was burnt at the stake as a heretic.
A man supporting a scientific principle we now know to be true
is killed by the Church. Obviously, this is a problem for the Church.
Except, his support of heliocentrism was hardly his biggest concern. Bruno was also a major
advocate against the virgin birth, denied transubstantiation, questioned the miracles
of Jesus, supported pantheism, and possibly even believed in reincarnation and Hermetic occultism.
That is quite the rap sheet for a priest.
Although his support of heliocentrism and plurality of worlds were mentioned at his
trial and certainly played a part in why he was initially questioned,
they were by no means the primary reason he was convicted. He was
condemned for his LONG list of heretical theological beliefs.
It can certainly be argued that the Church used excessive force in punishing heretics—a topic
for another video—but there is simply no argument that Bruno was condemned for being a scientist.
But what about Galileo, the grandaddy of them all, you ask? This was not a priest with unorthodox
beliefs. He didn’t get wrapped up in politics with the wrong people. He was just a scientist
who was condemned, jailed, and tortured for boldly contradicting the Bible, right?
Yes… and no. Galileo’s story is by far the most complicated.
For one thing, the image of Galileo heroically standing up to the Church
in defense of science is just untrue. At no point did he publicly reject Church teaching,
nor did he categorically defend heliocentrism. What brought him before the inquisition was a
book entitled “Dialogue on the Two World Systems” in which three characters discuss
the theories of the universe. One of the characters does defend heliocentrism,
but it is unclear whether Galileo held that position at the time.
In all likelihood, Galileo DID side with heliocentrism but because of the threat
of punishment, he remained silent on the matter. It’s also important
to remember that the best scientists of his day all disagreed with heliocentrism.
Not for biblical reasons, but for scientific ones. The science of the day didn’t support
Galileo, and Galileo didn’t have the evidence to defend his new claims.
It’s also difficult to be a martyr when little was done to him besides censure.
While the story for many years was that he was tortured and jailed by the Inquisition,
the evidence says otherwise. During his trial, he was lodged at the Tuscan
Embassy. After convicted of suspicion of heresy, he was placed under house arrest
at the Archbishop’s residence in Siena, a personal friend. After a few months,
he moved back to his villa near Florence where he spent his remaining years.
With the exception of the three days of interrogation, June 21-24, 1633,
he was housed in luxury. It is not known where he stayed during those days, and it is possible that
he was put in a jail cell, but much more likely that he was lodged in the prosecutor’s apartment.
The likelihood of torture seems even more remote. Court records show that the pope
decreed against torture in his case, and that he was interrogated merely with the
threat of torture on June 21. No record remains of any methods used upon him,
a requirement of inquisitors, and given the fact that he appeared in court on the 22nd,
at an advanced age, strongly suggests that he was not maltreated.
Contrary to common knowledge, Galileo never heroically stood up to the Church
nor was he jailed and tortured for his beliefs. He was silenced,
forced to give up teaching and publishing.
Which, is not insignificant, and the Church has since recognized this. In 1992,
Pope John Paul II praised Galileo’s work and admitted the error of his
contemporary scientists. For a time, their improper elevation of Aristotle’s
philosophy and literal interpretation of scripture clouded their judgment.
Both Church and scientists were simply wrong in the case of Galileo. We unfairly
censured a brilliant scientist, and for that we must do penance.
But notice what we’ve done here in this video. In unpacking these three situations,
we have not exonerated the Church from any wrong doing. Not at all. We have acted harshly along
the way—a bishop incited a mob against someone, a man was burned alive for his theological beliefs,
another was put under house arrest for our mistake. This is not great.
But it’s also not evidence that the Church has a vendetta against science. While each of these
cases involved scientists, the fact that they were scientists had nothing to do with what happened to
them. During Hypatia’s time, Augustine was supporting the same philosophy; during the
time of Giordano and Galileo, the Church was the leading supporter of research in astronomy
and was educating thousands of people in its universities in natural philosophy and physics.
Throughout our history, the Church has not only tolerated the sciences,
it has kept them alive and allowed them to flourish. We can thank Catholic priest Marin
Mersenne for founding the science of acoustics; Bl. Nicolas Steno for the field of geology;
Jesuit priest Angelo Secchi who pioneered the use of spectroscopy
to study stars and developed the first systematic classification; Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel
for his experiments on plant hybridization, earning him the title “Father of Genetics”;
Fr. Georges Lemaître for his proposition of, wait for it, The Big Bang Theory.
You simply can’t have martyrs for science if the Church has never been inherently against science.
Rather, what you have are three people who were the unfortunate victims of powerful,
ill-formed men. You have examples of the Church overstepping her authority and acting
very un-Christ-like. You have individuals, in particular times, acting on their own accord,
against the overall tradition of the Church. We must atone for sins we’ve committed against
Hypatia, Bruno, and Galileo… but calling them what they’re not won’t help anyone. The Church
may have a problem with power, but it does not have a problem with science.

Can you express why you are supporting your candidate without mentioning Kamala? What does he stand for, what has he accomplished that garners your vote?

But apparently he’s a moderate. This is disgusting. Yet the left will just fawn over him because they have to.

Can you express why you are supporting your candidate without mentioning Trump? What does she stand for, what has she accomplished that garners your vote?

National Guardsman
Teacher
Football coach
Hunter / gun owner
Rural background
Governor

....and as we all expected
White
Male

He's also crossed the aisle politically in some ways Im not sure I approve of. But you cant have everything.
All in all, a good choice.

Who is Tim Walz, Kamala Harris' pick for vice president?

My boyfriend (male 29) and I (female 32) met about a year ago and we’ve been in this great relationship, he brought me closer to God and made me in general a better woman. So I have a lot to thank him for but that’s also why I hold him in high standards.

When we first started dating he mentioned he had an addiction with porn but that since we met he stopped watching it. Because he knows as a man of God that’s not ok.

Yesterday, I had a feeling he watched porn when I came home and I asked him and he said “yes I’m sorry” and he went on for 4 hours telling me That throughout our relationship he’s done it 2 other times and that he didn’t say anything to me because he thought I would judge him so he was working it on it on his own.

Btw, I consider myself a beautiful latin woman (sorry if my English isn’t perfect when typing, this isn’t my first language) and I’m sure I make him happy in every aspect of life, I know he wants to marry me, etc. but yet he watched porn. He says it has nothing to do with me because he finds me very attractive. He says this is like any other addiction where the dopamine needs to be fed. But that he would never cheat on me or anything like that.

Besides this issue he really is a good man but I can’t stop thinking that I’m not enough for him and that he still in a way cheated on me abs that his intentions were not to tell me but because I asked him then he had to. This makes me doubt his integrity and his feelings for me. Even though he says this is not who he is and is just a temptation coming from the dark side and that he lost the battle but not the war.

I just don’t know if I can take away the images of him watching porn. He also said he didn’t get to the point of masturbation (but that’s mostly because I called him saying I was coming home) but he said that when I called he was already “on his way out”

At this point his word has taking credibility and I don’t even know if I believe him that when I called he was on “his way out” of it.

I just want to make sure that I’m choosing the man God wants for me and that later on when I’m old, my husband will still want me and won’t be wishing other woman. He says he wouldn’t do that but I don’t know anymore.

Please if you are of Christian faith as a man or a woman I’d love to hear your advice. I don’t want to tell anyone in my life close to me because they might judge him for a long time without knowing all the good things on him but I do need advice. I want to know what should I do. If I break up with him, if I forgive him, if I take my time been cold to him and distant (this one is how I currently feel)

Long story short, my boyfriend who’s supposed to be a man of God whom I told him that if he ever watched porn he should tell me, didn’t tell me until I asked him and I don’t know if I should stay on this relationship or break up.

Keep at it JD.

Oh my. But I’m sure there are Christians who won’t find fault with any of this.

I met somebody (Ken) in one date app and since the first time I knew I was not attracted to him as a man since he appeared taller in his profile and was older than in looked in his pictures, without mentioning his intense personality…

I should have listened to the red flags in both of us from the beginning, but I chose to ignore them apparently, like “I miss you” after the first time he took me to dinner.

After some weeks he invited me to a “friendly” Valentines dinner with my mother whom I take care of after her hip replacement surgery. He said he wanted to make it easier for me due to the fact that she is my priority for this time of my life and until she heals better and/or decides to go back to her country.

He felt in love with my mom and we both saw him as a generous soul that God had put in our path. That night due to his smoking I did realize but my nose started to react and I almost fainted of not being able to breath… he took us to his house being so near to that restaurant and took care of me giving me hot tea and some medication for allergies. We grew fond of his friendship inviting him over to our place for a home-made dinner on a later date. He was utterly happy, and my mom and I felt we reciprocated his attentions.

By March he invited me to dinner again and wanted to include my mom as well for me to feel more comfortable. I was already having some dates every 15 days with other people without any good results, so I took his invitations as friendship with a very sociable and nice man who several times cooked for us in his home, introducing us to his adult kids. We both are 53 y.o.

In April I lost my job and didn’t want to tell him, but my mom’s eye surgery was confirmed and I had to take her to the hospital due to the urgency of the procedure. He insisted on paying for it and I totally denied it arguing that the same hospital suggested me to request financial aid due to a hardship. I did so and I received it, but he paid for the rest without me knowing it and I was a bit mad but then had to be thankful assuring him that one way or another I would be able to pay him back whenever I recover from the financial situation.

After my mom’s recovery in a couple of weeks, she suggested inviting him again to have dinner over. There is when he asked me to explore the possibility of a relationship and I was certainly not excited since after coming back from the conference, I sort of rekindled another relationship with a out-of the country prospect, Clark. (I have to say that after losing my job I strongly considered moving back to Europe)

In June I went to Europe for work and Ken insisted on visiting the place and events I went, and I denied it since there was a strong possibility to finally meet Clark to consider our future possibilities. Before leaving Ken asked me if I was ready for an exclusive relationship with someone and I told him no, but I made the mistake of continuing in touch with him just to not make him feel used and left or discarded. I propose him to give us a break until my come back and he refused. I went to Europe met Clark for a brief lunch at near the train station on his was back home from some business meeting a near city and I felt I would love to explore a life with him but had to wait until the end of September to see him again in my country of residence but he started being too distant and almost stop conversations, video calls, etc. in spite of giving me an exact date of arrival here. I texted him and he said he is dealing with too much related to his last daughter about to leave to university and that after that would announce his “girlfriend” mood with me.

In the meantime, Ken stayed in Europe attending the events and I had to eventually introduce him as potential investor/entrepreneur to some of my key contacts in order to make this easier of everyone and not have to explain too much around my people. They accepted him and even invited him to the next events, and he proposed to in fact make some investments in the company, I was speechless.

At this point, my key contact tried to convince me that I should consider giving him a chance since his behavior towards me was more than obvious showing a genuine interest and that I should stop being mean to him, which I never thought I was. I sort of accepted and stayed with him his last days visiting different venues and receptions belonging to my work field. Unfortunately, in one of them he made a jealousy scene, and we fought until his return short after. I had to stay one more week attending to some other events and conferences.

Back in the country he proposed me to have an exclusive relationship which I tried to explore, overlooking his intense character and jealous nature.

By July he proposed us to move to his enormous house so I should stop paying rent and save for a better financial situation as well as to buy my first house as a divorced single daughter to provide a better life for my mom and myself. I agreed at first thinking that we could make it work specially after the almost complete indifference of Clark, who would only text me as a reply but never as own initiative.

Few weeks ago, Ken and I spoke about my move, but I was still very doubtful. At that time to my surprise, I met Tom who I always wanted to meet by 2022 and who just popped up into my life. I didn’t want to have sex with him since I was as an “official situationship” with Ken. I was super confused but felt an incredible connection with Tom as I haven’t felt in a very long time. We texted some more times and all of the sudden a colleague invited me to a conference in another state and Ken insisted on taking me there with my mom. I didn’t want to go and even didn’t want him to join either. I have no idea why and how; he convinced me and then I accepted after he mentioning again his interest in investing on my contact, my siblings, etc. and making everybody’s life better.

I thought I should finally define this crazy situation and accepted to go with him. It was decent time always with his jealousy scenes when I bumped into several male colleagues from abroad and out of state who he considered hitting on my in a disrespectful way.

Back in town from the conference he made me a proposal to for one year cover all my debts, move into his big almost empty house, stop paying rent and focusing on my professional growth without going to work as much as I normally do for the last 20 years and just enjoying a better life until recovering, improving and helping him at home and as his current girlfriend.

I was very grateful for this offer, but I had to stress the fact that I was not romantically interested in him and if he would like to collaborate with me and key contacts in the field he was welcome but I could not promise him to grow in love with him after actually having tried for about 3 months already.

He was crushed and I felt the most evil and deceitful girl in the world. I tried to tell him that I didn’t want to feel as I am selling to someone and he said, “what is wrong with me to take over your life when you know that I love you more than my own life and would take a bullet for you?”

I was appalled and went back home crying. Next day he requested a “goodbye dinner” and for some reason after crying with my mom I ended up saying “Ok, ok we will move, since apparently it’s on me to save your face from your executives at the company, your kids, family and friends after you turning around your house to accommodate my mom and myself”

I felt super guilty and even worse when finding myself very interested in Tom with whom I had zero drama and lot of chemistry and apparently a promising relationship in the future.

I have found another job that seems promising to give me back my previous lifestyle in spite or Ken accusing me of having an employee mentality instead of an executive like him.

In conclusion:

1. I am not sure still if Tom would end up committing to a stable relationship. 2. No idea if Clark will end up coming to see me and what are his real intentions. 3. The fact that I “am playing ping pong with a high executive” as Ken told me, is killing me especially when I know this is taking a toll on his health.

I am so so confused and August is already here…

Video Resurfaces of Walz Declaring ‘One Person’s Socialism Is Another Person’s Neighborliness’​

Ok, so I was going to harvest some road kill. Fine.

But oops my steakhouse dinner went on too long so I'll dump the dead bear in Central Park and make it look like a cyclist killed it.

RFK Jr admits dumping bear carcass in New York's Central Park

As a Christian, all I can say is “Yikes!”

The way theories work is that a single contrary
fact can disprove it.

Many claim to "know" evolution is false. But no Nobel is awarded.

Does anyone have such disproof?
If not, how in good conscience can anyone say its false?

Hi There,

Your thoughts on this guy, Mike Parsons, with 21K followers...

Login to view embedded media

Ye gods, what is wrong with the world..?


My wife and I have travelled to many places and we always take note of what the Australian Government says in regard to safety. But now we are being warned that going back to where we were brought up is to be considered dangerous.

What is wrong with the world? In what alternative universe could I ever imagine that I'd be warned about going back to, what in some senses, we call home? Or at least, used to be home. Not in Palestine or the Lebanon or Venezuela or Myanmar, but the United Kingdom.

And the fact that Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia, places where they've often been a concern regarding safety, have also issued their own travel alerts for the UK is...depressing.

It has been stated that the Bible is God, which, although not as heretical as it may sound, still raises questions about the depth of this belief among Protestants. For Catholics, such a statement is profoundly incorrect and would never be uttered, as they do not hold the belief that the Bible is God.

In my company, people bring in food often, and so it is likely to be noticed if I am not eating. I have tried fasting recently and people almost found out. I broke a fast prematurely, and the next morning there was a pancake breakfast which I partook of. Later that day, one of my coworkers asked me conversationally if I ate any of the breakfast. If I had prolonged my fast and not ate the breakfast, he would have found out just by asking me.

There are often carry in meal events, or food ordered in from restaurants. There is also a coworker who often buys a meal at Wendy's that I think may have 5 items, and she usually gives me her chicken nuggets because it is too much for her.

I am kind of struggling with what to tell these people if I decide to go on a fast. If there is food offered and they ask me about it, or the lady wants to give me chicken nuggets, I could just say, “This is a day where I am cutting back”. However if my boss orders a special meal that is delivered to the workplace, if I can't eat it, I may explain that I am fasting in order to not be rude, especially if I have been on the fast for a few days, where my digestive system would be overloaded by a normal meal if I don't break the fast properly.

Jesus instructed people not to share with others that they are fasting. However I don't only want to fast for spiritual purposes, but I am interested in the weight loss benefits. I could just explain to coworkers that I skip meals sometimes to lose weight, so that I avoid exalting myself in their eyes spiritually, and it is possible that some days of my fast may not be all that spiritual in nature, but more for the weight loss. I am still interested in the spiritual benefits too, though.

Something that I am uncomfortable with is that in American culture, where there seems to be a lot of misinformation that everyone has to have three meals a day, if people know that I am fasting or skipping meals, they might think that I have an eating disorder, when that is not necessarily true. I look relatively thin, and wearing a loose T-shirt, people can't easily notice the excess belly fat that has accumulated.

If the lady has extra chicken nuggets to give me from her meal at Wendy's, and I am fasting, I could tell her that I can put the nuggets in the freezer and eat them at a later time. Usually if I am not available to eat them, she will put them in the fridge, and the nuggets last for two or three days. However I am thinking of doing a much longer fast possibly where I can still drink juice.

I also want to mention that I have found it easy to give into temptation to break the fast after just about 2 days. If I can get past three days, than it kind of locks myself out from most food because a fast three days or longer is not healthy to break by eating processed food, bread, or meats, but only by eating some fruit or vegetables.

I could also explain to my coworkers the health benefits of fasting, such as the body removing damaged cellular material during a fast. I could also explain that I am trying to follow the example in nature, where an animal may build up fat reserves for migration or hibernation, and then, when they are not eating, their body consumes the fat reserves.