Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by robbie carrobie

I hope you return refreshed.

Now, where were we? Oh yes:
[b]you need to prove that he is binging, recklessly and wantonly over indulging to excess without moral restraint, to lay a charge of gluttony against him so that he shall be judicially removed from the congregation.
This seems easy enough.

' and s/he is unable to provide one, expel them from the congregation.

See. Easy as pie 🙂[/b]

Why thank you my illustrious Atheistic friend, however i am a harbinger of woe, for i am dreadfully sorry, but your rather minimal and concise synopsis is a tad inadequate because the resultant obesity might simply be the consequence of, as you yourself stated, a sedentary lifestyle, not as a consequence of gluttony, nor may they have reached the stage of obesity through any wanton and reckless disregard of the moral precept of self control, voraciously gobbling down food in over indulgence, biting the legs off roasted chickens and throwing it gleefully away as Kurt Douglas does in the movie Viking, at the Viking party, where goblets of wine are flowing and maidens wait upon the brave heroes, in fact , it was probably imperceptible, gradually occurring, and thus no charge of greed can be levied against them.

Sorry but is not so simple as one would imagine 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why thank you my illustrious Atheistic friend, however i am a harbinger of woe, for i am dreadfully sorry, but your rather minimal and concise synopsis is a tad inadequate because the resultant obesity might simply be the consequence of, as you yourself stated, a sedentary lifestyle, not as a consequence of gluttony, nor may they have reached the st ...[text shortened]... rge of greed can be levied against them.

Sorry but is not so simple as one would imagine 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

We seem to be at an impasse. Regarding:
the resultant obesity might simply be the consequence of, as you yourself stated, a sedentary lifestyle, not as a consequence of gluttony,
What I actually stated, which you'll see if you check above, is that if you have a sedentary lifestyle and you eat so much that you gain weight, you have no excuse. It is still gluttony even if you eat the same amount as a very active person who does not gain weight. This is compatible with your definition of gluttony.

So why can't we progress here? You keep saying things like:
nor may they have reached the stage of obesity through any wanton and reckless disregard of the moral precept of self control, voraciously gobbling down food in over indulgence, biting the legs off roasted chickens and throwing it gleefully away as Kurt Douglas does in the movie Viking, at the Viking party, where goblets of wine are flowing and maidens wait upon the brave heroes, in fact , it was probably imperceptible, gradually occurring, and thus no charge of greed can be levied against them.
They have habitually eaten more than they needed. Why is that not greedy? If the first couple of stone piling on didn't get them to curb their excess, how is that not a moral failing?

Sorry but is not so simple as one would imagine 🙂
You want the question of homosexuality to be as precisely simple as is necessary for you to exercise your unequivocal condemnation yet you introduce non existent complications on obesity that fly in the face of one of the most fundamental laws of physics, the conservation of energy. Unless you were force fed, or your medical disability gives you a compulsion to eat, your pie consumption is your responsibility. If it outstrips your ability to burn off the calories, you are gluttonous by your definition.

Now you have set a ludicrously high bar to qualify as a glutton. Kirk Douglas? What's the equivalent high bar you will set for gays in your congregation? John Hurt in The Naked Civil Servant? Unless you are like that you aren't really gay 🙂

So I'm sorry to bring you the disappointing news that the woe is yours, but there it is.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by robbie carrobie

We seem to be at an impasse. Regarding:
[b]the resultant obesity might simply be the consequence of, as you yourself stated, a sedentary lifestyle, not as a consequence of gluttony,
What I actually stated, which you'll see if you check above, is that if you have a sedentary lifestyle and you eat so much
So I'm sorry to bring you the disappointing news that the woe is yours, but there it is.[/b]

They have habitually eaten more than they needed. Why is that not greedy? If the first couple of stone piling on didn't get them to curb their excess, how is that not a moral failing?

No, because it was the manner in which it was done. This was a merely passive stone piling, not a binging, this is what i have been trying to say, gluttony is akin to binging, revelry with excess, not becoming fat through a sedentary lifestyle. The two are not synonymous because it was the attitude of mind, not the physicality which determines whether one is a glutton or whether one has transgressed the moral precept of self control.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They have habitually eaten more than they needed. Why is that not greedy? If the first couple of stone piling on didn't get them to curb their excess, how is that not a moral failing?

No, because it was the manner in which it was done. This was a merely passive stone piling, not a binging, this is what i have been trying to say, gluttony is akin ...[text shortened]... nes whether one is a glutton or whether one has transgressed the moral precept of self control.

But that's just arbitrary isn't it? Over eating to the extent of obesity is an attitude of mind and a moral failing because it is greedy. Why should it be a sin if you do it more suddenly and flamboyantly and not if it is more gradual?

Does that mean if gays do it slowly and discreetly they are ok in your congregation? 🙂 (Probably does 'cos you won't know...).

Originally posted by Lord Shark
But that's just arbitrary isn't it? Over eating to the extent of obesity is an attitude of mind and a moral failing because it is greedy. Why should it be a sin if you do it more suddenly and flamboyantly and not if it is more gradual?

Does that mean if gays do it slowly and discreetly they are ok in your congregation? 🙂 (Probably does 'cos you won't know...).

oh great white shark of all the sharks of the sea, it is not arbitrary, you cannot make a state of physicality subject to a moral precept for it is a matter of the mind, not of the body. What about all the skinny bingers, shall they get away with it? what about those who binge and work out, shall they get away with it? gluttony takes many forms, by singling out only the fatties you are being prejudicial, the very same claim that you are implying that is wrong with our procedure. Gluttony is binging, not being overweight.

Gaylords are gaylords because their sexual practices are deemed contrary to the perceived will of God, they knowingly and consciously have taken a stand against this, thus they are removed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh great white shark of all the sharks of the sea, it is not arbitrary, you cannot make a state of physicality subject to a moral precept for it is a matter of the mind, not of the body. What about all the skinny bingers, shall they get away with it? what about those who binge and work out, shall they get away with it? gluttony takes many forms, b ...[text shortened]... l of God, they knowingly and consciously have taken a stand against this, thus they are removed.

Gluttony is binging, not being overweight.

And if they regularly binge they will be overweight!!!

Granted people who occasionally over indulge will be hard to spot, just like the people who occasionally have too much to drink. If they get drunk once a month who's to tell and who will ever know?! But if soomeone regularly drinks to much, there are signs that people can pick up on.

Now consider this what you wrote earlier on the debate with regards to drinking -

we are also perfectly at liberty to state that while alcohol abuse may be considered by the WHO organisation as a disease, like smoking, its a preventable one, through self restraint and moderation, thus, over indulgence whether intermittently or prolonged is gluttony. how you can hope to state that this is not the case i do not know, for one to become an alcoholic, one needs to persistently overindulge in the first instance, it is not done after a large glass of Pimms no1 with crushed ice, summer fruits and lemonade, is it!

Now i'm going to change just one word in the text, and the end.

we are also perfectly at liberty to state that while obesity may be considered by the WHO organisation as a disease, like smoking, its a preventable one, through self restraint and moderation, thus, over indulgence whether intermittently or prolonged is gluttony. how you can hope to state that this is not the case i do not know, for one to become obese, one needs to persistently overindulge in the first instance, it is not done after eating one or two pork pies, is it!

Now your never going to catch the people who are gluttonous once in a while, but that doesn't mean that the people who are regularly gluttonous should go unnoticed?!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh great white shark of all the sharks of the sea, it is not arbitrary, you cannot make a state of physicality subject to a moral precept for it is a matter of the mind, not of the body. What about all the skinny bingers, shall they get away with it? what about those who binge and work out, shall they get away with it? gluttony takes many forms, b ...[text shortened]... l of God, they knowingly and consciously have taken a stand against this, thus they are removed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you cannot make a state of physicality subject to a moral precept for it is a matter of the mind, not of the body.
But I'm not doing that. You cannot get obese without eating more than you need. To eat more than you need involves a state of mind. Once the weight piles on, and you keep doing it, this state of mind is best characterised as a lack of self control regarding your food intake. Namely, gluttony. The only exceptions to this involve rare medical conditions. So my procedure works.

What about all the skinny bingers, shall they get away with it?
What about all the closet gays, shall they get away with it? Sorry, I'm not going to let you have it both ways.

gluttony takes many forms, by singling out only the fatties you are being prejudicial, the very same claim that you are implying that is wrong with our procedure.
No system is perfect, since you won't catch the clandestine homosexuals. So to be consistent you need to either abandon both procedures or adopt both. I'd vote for the former.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Gluttony is binging, not being overweight.

And if they regularly binge they will be overweight!!!

Granted people who occasionally over indulge will be hard to spot, just like the people who occasionally have too much to drink. If they get drunk once a month who's to tell and who will ever know?! But if soomeone regularly drinks to much, ther t that doesn't mean that the people who are regularly gluttonous should go unnoticed?![/b]

no it does not mean that they shall go unnoticed, many times, persons gave been captured while binging and have been disciplined by the congregation as is our procedure, these things have a funny way of coming to the fore. take for example a young guy where i live, he was on holiday in Greece, away from where he thought no one would see him, he binged, gluttonously got wasted and by the end was dancing on tables and drinking tequila from ladies navels.

unfortunately for him, there was a tv crew making a holiday program, now one of our sisters was ill and could not attend the meeting, imagine her surprise as she watched the holiday program and there our young brother was leading a double life, pretending he was a pillar of righteousness and behaving licentiously elsewhere.

we take this very seriously for even though he was elsewhere we do not like reproach being heaped upon the name of our God, it is the worst thing that we can imagine and he was disciplined. In fact his father was an elder and was told to stand down because it was not a good reflection on the congregation, nor of his teaching, for if one cannot teach the family, how can one preside over a congregation.

If there is a serious charge of gluttony, it shall be dealt with, rest assured these have strange ways of coming to the fore.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]you cannot make a state of physicality subject to a moral precept for it is a matter of the mind, not of the body.
But I'm not doing that. You cannot get obese without eating more than you need. To eat more than you need involves a state of mind. Once the weight piles on, and you keep doing it, onsistent you need to either abandon both procedures or adopt both. I'd vote for the former.[/b]

eating more calories than you need and excessively binging are different states of mind, you must see that, surely? yes the end result may be the same leading to over weight, but the state of mind is entirely different, is it not?

yes no system is perfect, and you must realise that it is administered by imperfect humans, prone to aberration, that is why, in the case of a charge of gluttony, extra special care must be taken. If a gaylord is a closet gaylord, how shall he hide it? we are a gregarious people, regularly associate together, he may lead a double life for some time, but eventualy the sin becomes manifest.

Just for the record, no one is removed because of the crime, they are removed because of their attitude towards the wrongdoing. if they show a willingness to repent, then they are helped to overcome, whatever difficulty they are facing, if they refuse and tell the judicial committee to get lost, well, in effect, they are disassociating themselves, and all the best to them, we have the name of our God to keep free from reproach, as best we can.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
eating more calories than you need and excessively binging are different states of mind, you must see that, surely? yes the end result may be the same leading to over weight, but the state of mind is entirely different, is it not?

What you have failed to do is show that they are different in a morally significant way. That's why I said 'arbitrary'. Eating more than you need is excessive and shows a lack of self control. Why is it morally significant if you do this in an irregular patterns opposed to smoothly and gradually?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
What you have failed to do is show that they are different in a morally significant way. That's why I said 'arbitrary'. Eating more than you need is excessive and shows a lack of self control. Why is it morally significant if you do this in an irregular patterns opposed to smoothly and gradually?

yes i may have failed to show why this is the case, for i have simply been replying to your posts as best i can, to accommodate all the concerns, leaving me no time to establish my own, and even if i had, i do not know if i could do it successfully? you dont fancy lending me a hand do you? In retrospect, it seems to be that binges are generally of a very short duration, as in binge eating, or binge drinking, they are not continuous of prolonged, as in many days or years.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i may have failed to show why this is the case, for i have simply been replying to your posts as best i can, to accommodate all the concerns, leaving me no time to establish my own, and even if i had, i do not know if i could do it successfully? you dont fancy lending me a hand do you? In retrospect, it seems to be that binges are generally of ...[text shortened]... binge eating, or binge drinking, they are not continuous of prolonged, as in many days or years.

Shall I switch sides? Might be fun. I did already give you what I thought was your best bet a page or so ago. I'll think on it.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Shall I switch sides? Might be fun. I did already give you what I thought was your best bet a page or so ago. I'll think on it.

yes as an atheist, you should be truly objective!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes as an atheist, you should be truly objective!

Good one, but no, as an atheist I think the concept of objectivity is problematic.

So I'll agree to differ with you there, and say thanks for an interesting debate.

I'm glad to hear you treat members of your congregation who have problems with compassion.

Mind you, the next time you see a huge member*, you should have concerns, just as, if you see somebody from your congregation who sets off your gaydar, you should give them a chance to repent.

*fnar fnar, I mean of the congregation. 🙂

So was Jesus gay? Probably just as unlikely as him having been fat. Are you somebody whose monomaniacal interest in combating homosexuality is a result of repressed homosexual desire resulting in a defense strategy of gluttony, thus giving you a cushion of fat to protect you from those alluring men? Nah, that's pop psychobabble, you're just like the rest of us, doing the best you can with what you have.

Peace be with you 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no it does not mean that they shall go unnoticed, many times, persons gave been captured while binging and have been disciplined by the congregation as is our procedure, these things have a funny way of coming to the fore. take for example a young guy where i live, he was on holiday in Greece, away from where he thought no one would see him, he bing ...[text shortened]... of gluttony, it shall be dealt with, rest assured these have strange ways of coming to the fore.

He wasn't dancing on tables was he????

Good grief whatever next?!

What an odd bunch you are.