![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|