LadyDraka

Losing weight fast or striving to be fit and healthy?

Because, it appears, from the questions here, some people think that to be thin/skinny, and to get there quickly, is to be healthy and it just isn't so. So many stupid ideas and questions. 500 calories a day? 115lbs and fat? What pills make you lose the fastest? How to lost 20/30/40/50lbs in a month?

Honestly people, which is really more important? Getting fit and having a healthy body? Or just losing weight in any manner that might do it no matter how dangerous and unhealthy?

If someone asks a question about deity and someone uses "She" or "Her" to talk about deity...does it really make a difference to you? I ask because I answered a question about basically communing with god and even though my answer wasn't that much different than some others I happened to be the only one who used "She" and I was entirely thumbed down. I figured it had to do with using the female pronoun. So? Does it really matter to you what gender a deity is perceived as? Is it really that important to you?

Fire and brimstone. Unrelenting heat.

Or

Ice and snow. Bone chilling cold.

and it would cost you absolutely nothing to do so, wouldn't you save that life?

A child dying and you could save them...wouldn't you?

A mother dying and you could save her, wouldn't you?

A young father laying on his death bed and you had the means to save his life, wouldn't you?

Then why wouldn't anyone agree to organ donation?

Does it really matter to you if your body is used for organ transplants or scientific study? If the body you are no longer using could possibly be used to help others live then wouldn't you want that? Or do you insist that your body is "put to rest" as a complete whole? What is your reasoning either way?

I don't think I've ever wanted something more when it comes to WWE. Please....please...shut him up.

It's like a person is a Christian or they are an atheist. At least, that's what so many seem to act like around here. As if when someone gets disillusioned with Christianity the automatic way to go is to atheism. Or if someone isn't a Christian the automatic assumption is they are an atheist. Or, on the flip side, if someone isn't an atheist then they're a Christian. I'm not saying everyone does this, but there are a great many who do. There is a enormous variety of beliefs and stances, so why do so many get stuck on just those two?

Okay, for those who have an issue with WoW suspend your criticism for a moment and just watch this video. It deals with religion by use of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Just wondering what people think of the arguments used in this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isV0qR-CKeQ

They don't believe in going to doctors. There have been many cases over the years of children dying from curable and treatable illnesses because their Christian Science following parents refused to take them for medical treatment. They instead rely solely on prayer to "cure" things like diabetes, heart murmurs, obstructed bowel, anaphylaxis, cancer, measles, appendicitis and so on and so forth. We're talking babies all the way up to teenagers...as long as they live in their parents house their parents refuse to get them proper medical treatment. This being the case...should Christian Scientists even be allowed to raise children being that their religious beliefs place their children in peril by the mere virtue of what they believe?

I have noticed several questions here where people ask what religion they are closest to and it seems the vast majority of people here don't bother to actually answer the question. Instead they just recommend their own beliefs. "Follow Jesus" or "There is no god" or "Islam is the truth" and so on and so forth regardless of what the person says they believe.

So, would you suggest a religion (or non-belief) other than your own? Why or why not?

In answer to my own question, I actually recommend different religions frequently, or send people to take the Belief-O-Matic test to find out for themselves. I don't believe one way of believing is a fit for all people.

then what makes you think the rest of the bible isn't?

Flat out, unless you honestly believe all existence was "poofed" into being exactly like described in Genesis, then you must believe that the very beginning of the bible is, at least, allegory. That being the case, since the bible starts out the gate as allegory then what makes one think that the rest of it holds any real truth to it at all? If the bible starts out as an allegory (or just straight out fiction) then why should anyone take any of the rest of it literally? Why believe any of it happened at all if, from the very start, it wasn't fact?

I seem to be seeing this a lot. the "I'm not religious/I don't have a religion, I have a 'relationship' with Jesus" shpeel. You are choosing not to use the word that actually defines your "relationship" because you don't want to be associated with other religions. In other words, you like to place yourself "above" other people and criticism of religion by saying "oh, no...I'm not religious...I have a 'relationship' with Jesus". That's the same dang thing as saying "I'm not fat...I'm fluffy". Do you really think that by wording it differently it makes it so? That by saying you have a "relationship" that anyone else doesn't see that you have a religion? You're religious, you have a religion. Get over yourself.

It appears that on this site the words "theist" and "religious" are automatically linked exclusively with Christianity. This is just so wrong I don't know where to begin.

Not all theists have the same beliefs. In fact, a great many theists have beliefs that are in direct contradiction with those of Christianity. So to try to stick us all under the same label and say we "all believe" a certain way is either a show of extreme ignorance or stupidity.

There are:

monotheists

polytheists

pantheists

panentheists

deists

animistics

ditheists

maltheists

tritheists

monolatrists

etc...etc...

Now really, do you honestly think they are all the same thing or have the same concepts behind them? Do you even honestly know enough about even a few of them, let alone all of them, to stereotype them all together? I'd be willing to bet the bank that the honest answer is a "no". So why do so many here ignore this fact and try to make all theists fit into the same dang crowded and mislabeled box?

This is actually two questions in one really.

To those who believe that being gay is a choice do you even realize what a choice is? You have to have not only pros and cons to weigh, but just as likely a chance to go either way. Which would mean that everyone would be born with an equal attraction to both genders. Making everyone, including you, at their core, bisexual. In order for homosexuality to be a choice, then heterosexuality would have to be a choice as well. Meaning that you would have to admit that you were just as attracted to the same gender as you are as to the opposite gender before you sat down and weighed the pros and cons and "chose" to be straight. Are you willing to admit that? Do you understand what a "choice" really is?

Secondly, even if being gay was a choice (which it is obviously not) then...so what? What does someone else's love and sex life have to do with your own that you feel you have to weigh in on it and say how "wrong" it is? Honestly? Even if it was a "lifestyle choice" then it would be no different than any other "lifestyle choice". No more "wrong" or "odd" than a man choosing to be a stay-at-home dad. Or a woman deciding to be a boxer. Or a brunette deciding to go blonde. So even if your argument is that it is a choice (see above to see how wrong that is) ...so what? What is your point? What does it matter?

Okay, now the fundies have gone completely nutso (as if they weren't already).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU&feature...

And their website: http://www.resistingthegreendragon.com/

Seriously? Recycling and renewable energy is "war" on the poor and Christianity??? Honestly? People who try to be environmentally friendly are a part of a "cult"? The "Cult of the Green Dragon"? How much more inane can we get people?

Christians talk about being "saved" and I always have to wonder...what from? By the sounds of it one needs saved from the wrath of their god. But at the same time the god is supposedly a loving and forgiving god that created everyone and everything. Now, I ask, which is it? I mean, a loving creator god would not be a vindictive abusive god one would need saving from, and if one does need saving then the god must not be all that loving and so on.

Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous. Think about it. Why create life, life you know you created to fall short of your expectations, and yet set expectations that you know they will not meet in order to punish them if they don't dance appropriately on your strings? I'm sorry, but that's not a loving deity...that's a sadistic puppet-master.

So again...what do I need "saved" from?

Just curious. Could you fall in love with someone by just talking to them online or over phone for a long time? Do you think you could fall in love with a person without ever laying eyes upon them? And at that point would how they looked even matter?

For those who maintain that homosexuality is a choice...when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. If you maintain you can choose one, then the other must be chosen too. Otherwise you are making the absurd claim that one can be born one way and it is impossible to be born the other. Without physiological proof of your stance (in fact the actual proof goes against that) you cannot claim that it is impossible to be born homosexual. SO....

When did you choose to be straight AND how did you just decide to put away your equal attraction to the same sex? For if it is truly a choice then you must have been equally attracted to both genders.

Go ahead...I'd love to hear your stories of choosing to be straight.

Yes, I know this is R&S, however there is simply more of a population here than in Engineering where I had posted this same question days ago and have only gotten one answer that obviously didn't really read the question.

I've been fighting for months with my electric company because my usage per month, for the past 6 months, has more than doubled from usual from the past few years. I've finally had a guy come out to test my meter, which he said tested fine, BUT it was a 120v meter and I should have had a 240v one. He replaced my meter with a new digital one and now my per day usage seems to have dropped from 35kwh per day to 9-10kwh per day. However, since he put down that the meter tested fine I don't know how to argue it exactly. My thinking is that just because the meter tested fine at the proper voltage of 120 does NOT mean it was running fine at the 245 that was tested at my meter site. Isn't it quite possible that the higher voltage rate would have had the 120v meter running faster than it should have been? Especially taking into account that the 120v meter had been there for years obviously running at the higher voltage rate?

Ok, for those Creationists and other literal bible believers, please explain this:

On the first "day" god created light and dark and separated them to create night and day. Yet it wasn't until the fourth day that he create the "greater light"(sun) and the "lesser light"(moon - which isn't even a light) and the stars in the sky "to divide the day from the night". Why was this separation of night and day done twice? Not to mention the fact that plants were supposedly created on the third day and plants can't exactly live without sunlight. Now, what was the original "light" created to make day and night on the first day if the sun wasn't created until the fourth day?