Food and morality

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:00:15 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

The two pound parameter cannot be applied universally
although I happen to like it as it is it still matters somewhat how
it's configured.

Ime, it seems to work when applied universally for those who are overweight.

That may be true, but the question in this thread is, is 2 pounds of
food a good "fair share" for your average person (barring those with
higher then normal energy requirements) overweight or not and
therefore a good yardstick for determining whether or not one is being
a "glutton".

There is no question that it will work for an overweight person who is
able and/or willing to comply with it. (assuming we're talking about a
"normal" person living a "normal" lifestyle and eating "normal" food)

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:16:08 -0400, M_un Shot
wrote:

Imho, we should not judge unless we want to be judged by God.

I would separate the necessity to judge an individual's morality with
the necessity to judge or determine when one is being gluttonous.

But if gluttony is a sin then by judging when one is being gluttonous,
you are judging one's morality.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:27:27 -0400, Ron Ritzman
wrote:

Tell me, is it a more onerous practice to criticize Phil McGraw, who
is not here to answer and defend or to take on a twit like Bitsy Lynn
or a nutcase like JJ or you for that matter, who is here and can
answer and defend?

Think long about your answer. It will be archived.

After all, you have been over on asd-lc criticizing Dr. Atkins and his
diet and he wasn't there to defend himself.

But I am not being hypocritical like Frilegh is. I, like you, freely
choose, living or dead, here or not, who to praise and who to
criticize. Frilegh has whined incessantly to me about criticizing "the
locals" who have every opportunity to defend or rebutted.

McGraw doesn't; makes for an easy target with no consequences.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031018.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:44:51 -0400, Ron Ritzman
wrote:

I would separate the necessity to judge an individual's morality with
the necessity to judge or determine when one is being gluttonous.

But if gluttony is a sin then by judging when one is being gluttonous,
you are judging one's morality.

I can see sin and recognize it for what it is. I can see the adulterer
and recognize adultery. What God does with the sinner, the adulterer,
is the judgment. I have no idea what those judgments are having no
idea what God actually does and thinks about individuals. It's His
universe, He can and is justified to make judgments according to each
individual as He chooses. Only He truly knows what is in the hearts of
men.

The point is moot or should I say mu_te; it makes no difference to
either the sinner or to God what any of us think about our neighbors
only what we think and do about ourselves.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031018.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

M_un Shot wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:27:27 -0400, Ron Ritzman
wrote:

Tell me, is it a more onerous practice to criticize Phil McGraw, who
is not here to answer and defend or to take on a twit like Bitsy Lynn
or a nutcase like JJ or you for that matter, who is here and can
answer and defend?

Think long about your answer. It will be archived.

Yeah, right. I guess you didn't go look up "onerous" to see how your
crippled vocabulary has let you down once more.

After all, you have been over on asd-lc criticizing Dr. Atkins and his
diet and he wasn't there to defend himself.

But I am not being hypocritical like Frilegh is.

Of course not. You're being even more hypocritical by denying what you
do and what you are.

The point remains: "you have been over on asd-lc criticizing Dr.
Atkins and his diet and he wasn't there to defend himself."

McGraw doesn't makes for an easy target with no consequences.

What a perfectly silly thing to say, especially since you say that
usenet carries no reality (particularly for cowards with fake names).
Consequences. Like what, your undying displeasure? Oh, the humanity...

Pastorio

M_un Shot wrote:

It's such an arbitrary line and who is to judge what constitutes
gluttony?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:00:15 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

Imho, we should not judge unless we want to be judged by God.

I would separate the necessity to judge an individual's morality with
the necessity to judge or determine when one is being gluttonous.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031018.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

The word gluttony or glutton has judgmental connotations.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Ron Ritzman wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:00:15 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote:

The two pound parameter cannot be applied universally
although I happen to like it as it is it still matters somewhat how
it's configured.

Ime, it seems to work when applied universally for those who are overweight.

That may be true

It is true, Ron.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/