18 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobnever mind the dictionary, get out your mind and refer to it, can skinny people not also be guilty of gluttony! or is it exclusively fatties as your definition suggests.
Here are the dictionary defintions of the two.
[b]greed
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed
gluttony
1 : excess in eating or drinking
2 : greedy or excessive indulgence[/b]
18 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSkinny people can be gluttonous, and if they persist then they will become fat.
never mind the dictionary, get out your mind and refer to it, can skinny people not also be guilty of gluttony! or is it exclusively fatties as your definition suggests.
Fat/overweight people are so becasue they eat too much food ie. more than they need, or to put it another way they eat to excess. Which is the definition of 'gluttony'.
The end result of continuous gluttony, with regards to food, is for people to become overweight and fat.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobdo you not think that one can be gluttonous on one occasion, but thereafter, need not be so on others?
Skinny people can be gluttonous, and if they persist then they will become fat.
Fat/overweight people are so becasue they eat too much food ie. more than they need, or to put it another way they eat to excess. Which is the definition of 'gluttony'.
The end result of continuous gluttony, with regards to food, is for people to become overweight and fat.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, Rob.
do you not think that one can be gluttonous on one occasion, but thereafter, need not be so on others?
Now do you accept that overweight people, excluding the ones with medical conditions, are overweight because they have eaten food to excess and are therefore gluttonous?
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour latest is just another in a very long line of irrational thought from you: "Two half-truths equals a whole truth...there is no word in Hebrew for sin in general...Jesus explicitly stated something because it is implied..." Each time an idiotic thought pops into your head, you're so sure you've come across something that contradicts what Jesus explicitly states. You become obsessed to the point of responding to almost every post I make with your latest idiotic idea for months at a time. So now you have a new idiotic idea. So what?
So , Jesus teaches us how to pray daily to God and explicitly includes "Forgive us our trespasses " in this structure of prayer.
Logically this implies that he expects those who follow him will have need of confession and therefore cannot be totally sinless.
Care to point out to me where I have gone wrong in my "reasoning"?
BTW- As for "fata ...[text shortened]... ctually believe was who he said he was. And you call me a nutter.......... 🙄
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy don't you just admit that you're a bigot and a hypocrite instead of continuing to embarrass yourself?
oh, it wasn't meant to be funny, Lol, that even funnier! oh maybe its just a fit of the giggles, but it made me laugh, sorry if it was not meant to be humorous.
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobno, you will never take me alive! gluttony is a a lack or lapse to a moral precept, that being self control. if you can construct an argument, which illustrates that indeed, persons who are overweight are overweight as a result of moral abandonment, then i can agree with your statement. As it stands persons are overweight, not because of a lapse in morality, simply through a lifestyle that is not conducive to their health.
Yes, Rob.
Now do you accept that overweight people, excluding the ones with medical conditions, are overweight because they have eaten food to excess and are therefore gluttonous?
18 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt only sounds idiotic to you because you seem to lack the ability to make sense of more complex logical points.
Your latest is just another in a very long line of irrational thought from you: "Two half-truths equals a whole truth...there is no word in Hebrew for sin in general...Jesus explicitly stated something because it is implied..." Each time an idiotic thought pops into your head, you're so sure you've come across something that contradicts what Jesus explici ...[text shortened]... your latest idiotic idea for months at a time. So now you have a new idiotic idea. So what?
Why do you take things so literally? Of course I know that technically to be explicit means not to imply something , but so what? Just because I have an individual way of describing things doesn’t invalidate the point. Are you so dim that you cannot see beyond mere forms of expression?
For example , one can state something “explicitly” even though it is done via an implication or metaphor. Jesus did this at the last supper. He did not explicitly say that he was setting himself up to be the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the people. However , he deliberately used all the metaphors , images and symbolism that implied this directly. We can also use logic here because by process of elimination we know that it’s ridiculous that Jesus bought into this symbolism unintentionally because it’s illogical to think that he did not realise what he was saying (because his knowledge of Jewish tradition was outstanding). In it’s own way it was as explicit as anything he could have said.
So I don’t see what’s illogical about saying that some things can be said explicitly by implying them. It may be a slightly poetic way of stating it but it’s totally valid. Which part of the above logic do you dispute?
As regards half truths making a whole or bigger truth I can only wonder if you are just plain dim or deliberately ignorant.
For example , in chess one is told to “develop one’s pieces as soon as possible “ (half truth 1) but this is not the whole truth. As everyone knows the following is also true “don’t hastily place your pieces in bad positions” ( half truth 2) .
So which one is true? Truth 1 or Truth 2? Or is it not more intelligent to say that they compliment each other and that although they may seem contradictory to a child who thinks in a limited way , they are actually two halves of a bigger truth and understanding. They work against each other to form a greater understanding of chess.
So which part of this logic do you not understand? Maybe it would help if you pointed out how I am being irrational in these concepts rather than just saying it – as if by repeating it over and over again that makes it more true?
I am beginning to wonder if I have misunderstood you. Maybe you are not arrogant or hypocritical afterall – it could be that you just think in such rigid patterns that you don’t know what to do if someone takes away your “colour by numbers” guide to logic.
I'm confused. Now I don't know whether to find you distasteful or pity your lack of understanding.