Wheetsin

Missed that, where's it at? I'll go read again.

I am asking my questions very seriously. I want to know why, if you believe the bible is literal, you wouldn't also believe the world is a circle, as the bible states. Or why you wouldn't believe that rabbits have rumen, as the bible indicates. How are those questions nit-picking? It seems like whenever you're called out on evading questions, or when it's shown that what you have said is not accurate, or when someone doesn't allow you to skirt around the question, this is the turn you take. Why not just answer the questions? Why does your refusal equate to people "whinning" (a.k.a whining), or playing childish games, or mocking your faith, or a host of other accusations? If you don't have an answer, it's ok to say so. No one has all the answers, or they'd also have all the Nobels. And it's much more respectable to say "I can't answer that", or "I don't know" than to disguise your inability or reluctance to answer as someone else's childishness or stupidity.

I have a hard time buying the "they asked for it" logic when it comes to things like violent behavior. Does anyone believe the "She asked for it" rape defense, because a woman wears a provocative outfit? Is that different from believing a "He asked for it" defense if a male wore a provocative outfit, that happened to provoke something different?

:clap2: :clap2:

Why are you so intent on misquoting me? I ASKED why there are "no geological signs". I never SAID there was NO EVIDENCE. And after asking for resources, I later added that MY searches had been unsuccessful, not that ALL searches had been. THis is the 2nd time I've had to explain to you the difference between what actually transpired, and what you're claiming transpired. It's like you read what's on the screen, and then let it mean whatever you want it to. But ironically enough, you're the first one to call foul if someone misquotes you, e.g. the most recent exchange between you and TOM. So why can you wantonly misquote others, but no one can do it to you? And I'm still waiting to hear what qualifies you to make the statement to me that, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know? On what evidence do you base that claim? ...and a host of other questions still lingering out there.

All in all life isn't that different. And IMO, whatever differences are in place, are sooo worth it.

Haha, I do spoil my family. I expect that will change if/when we have a child. In the meantime, I help them live it up. She is about an hour and a half away. We don't have a super close relationship. I was much, much closer to my grandfather, and when he died, the whole dynamic of our family changed. (Funny how that happens - you have the "glue" that binds the entire family, and things sort of fall apart if they're gone.) How do I say this nicely... I can tolerate her well in small doses. And I just remembered, she's one of the... what are they called, red hats? Red hat society? Something like that. Maybe something she could do with them? (Eekgad, my grandmother in a bright purple feather boa is a thread of its own.)

The only surgeon I've heard of who takes patients that are not his own is Dr. Malley -- I think he does, anyway. I have no idea what he charges. He advertises on TV all the time, so I'm sure his number is out there somewhere. Oops, jsut googled "dr malley kansas city" and go this website, ph # included: http://www.malleysurgical.com/

It's weird, how much relativity is involved. The picture below was taken around the time I last felt comfortable about my body. At the time, although I felt comfortable, I also felt fat. And I was fat, relative to what I had weighed a few months before. But now I'd be thrilled if I could get there, even if I never went a pound below. What was I thinking?

Jeans are a nightmare for me. My legs are usually too long for "averages", and a little too short for "talls". No problem, I usually just get the talls and be sure to wear a heel. But if I don't want to wear a heel, it's either have my hems dragging on the ground, or be ready for a flood. And if the jeans fit in my hips, they're gaping in the waist. Once I found a perfect pair of jeans at Gordman's. Bought them and they fit perfect, like they were made for me. First pair of jeans in my life, ever, even when I was thin, that fit well. I went back the next day to buy more and they were gone. The brand is back now, but they're this low rise cut (which is not flattering on me, since I have a "double belly"... you know, where it look slike a B instead of a ). Sure, that makes perfect sense! Anyway, when I wear low rise jeans, the waist usually hits the "fold" in my double belly, making it stick out over the top of the jeans. Which I refuse to have. Which means higher rise pants, which also means no bootcut or flare leg, which are the only ones that look right on me. *sigh* Oh, something I said earlier reminds me of a peeve. I hate that kids are wearing really long jeans now, and apparently not washing them very often either. The bottoms of the legs drag through the dirt and ran and oil and everything else, and get filthy, and this is the style? And I KNOW they didn't get that filthy from just one wearing. Are dirty clothes trendy now?!?

Try telling yourself: Nothing tastes as good as being healthy feels, and see if that makes any difference. Otherwise, TIVOs are quite nice investments.

I'm sorry, what does that mean? I'm not sure if you tried to type "nonsense" or "non essence" or something different, and don't want to make assumptions. So you still haven't answered my question. You take the bible literally. The bible says the world is a circle. Do you believe the world is a circle? I didn't ask "Why do the people call it a circle?", as you answered. I asked what you believe. Is the world a sphere, or is the bible to be taken literally? And you also haven't answered what it is, exactly, that qualifies you to say, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know? Now - hang on. You're the first one to say, "That's not what I said !! Show me where I said that !!" So be careful what you indicate others have said. My words were, "I've been unsuccessful in my searches." BIG difference. No, I'm not talking about cows. I don't think you got my point. I was talking about CUD, which comes from rumen. And it ONLY comes from rumen. Saliva doesn't come from the eye or the ear or the toes, it ONLY comes from the mouth. If you say "saliva", you're talking about something from the mouth. And if you say "tears", you're talking about something from the eyes. And if you say "cud", you're talking about something from the rumen, not from the stomach. So I'll ask again, because this was yet another question you evaded. If you believe the bible is literal, then you believe that rabbits have rumen. And if you don't believe that rabbits have rumen, then you believe the bible is not literal. Which do you believe? I'm confused. It took you many years of intense study and learning to form the belief that I'm trying to prove you wrong?? Yes, I agree. And context makes meaning subjective. It can completely change the meaning. How can something be literal when it depends on context? Your analogy of law doesn't equate. Laws were written literally, but they cannot be literal in today's world was the gist of what you said, if I remember correctly. So by your analogy the bible was literal once upon a time, but it cannot be literal in today's world. Would that be the parallel?

Hi Sunta, and happy anniversary! I'm not going to guess about what you're feeling, but a firned of mine who is banded experienced increasing pain around her port - if I remember correctly. From mild annoyance to take your breath away attacks. In her case, her tubing had herniated and the surgeon just poked it back in place, added some reinforcing, and called it good.

Most in the Rants and Raves forum do believe in god. I've seen a handful of atheists have presence here. Count is now probably up 5 or 6 "known" atheists. For that to be most in this forum, it would mean that there are no more than 5 others who post to RnR. And that's simply not accurate.

Yeah, huge. A circle is 2 dimensional, like a photograph. A sphere is 3 dimensional, like a person. I think the difference between something that has 2 dimensions and something that has 3 is enormous. But you evaded the question. Do you believe the earth is a circle, as stated in the bible? Yes, I have looked. But it's interesting how you're somehow qualified to tell me what I have done or not done. How exactly is that? If I hadn't looked, I would not have been able to confirm references to local floods. Please, point me to some evidence. I've been unsuccessful in my searches. (And BTW, any climatologist or most 7th graders could tell you that if a worldwide ocean just somehow inexplicably "went back to the atmosphere", it would come right back down as rain, and be another worldwide ocean). No sir, cud is specifically material brought up from the rumen. And the bible is literal, so either rabbits have rumen and can produce cud, or it is not literal and cud could mean anything brought back up from the digestive track. It can't be both ways if only one meaning is literally right. So which do you believe it is? Do you believe rabits have rumen, or do you believe there is room for interpretation about what "cud" means? (And yes, I have raised rabbits. Holland Lops to be specific. And not a single one of them had rumen or produced cud.) I didn't say "horse". If you mean give you, it is Judges 3:22. But why would you have to go see? If the bible is literal, and it says dirt, then surely it's dirt, no? Oh, is that where context comes into play? Context that effects interpretation? I didn't pull verses out of context, I quoted them. I took them from a book and typed them on my screen. And if the words are meant literally, they should survive the transplant. And if the word is literal, why does context matter? I'm not trying to "prove you wrong", that has already been done. Again, you make assumptions about my actions. I'm trying to understand from whence your perspective comes. You are the first person I've encountered who is so adamanat that they are correct, and held viewpoints so divergent from most of the christians I know. If I have a better understanding of what your beliefs are, and what literality you believe to be true or not true, then I am better able to engage in the conversation, versus making assumptions, as you are doing. Ron Cusano - let me ask... why is this an "us vs. them" situation for you? Why do you assume anyone is trying to prove you wrong? Is someone who asks you whether or not you believe what's written in the bible somehow an inherent enemy to you?

If literal is the only interpretation of the bible, then: IS 40:22. The earth is a circle. You believe the earth is a circle, and not a sphere? GE 7:19-20. The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (that's more than twenty feet) above the highest mountains. Breaking that out, that's a rain rate of 6 inches per minute required to cover the entire earth with an ocean 5 miles deep. 5 miles deep would be required to have placed Mt. Everest (at its last current height, let alone it's height that long ago) under 20 feet of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Where did all the water go? How come we see no geological signs of a worldwide flood, only isolated floodings? GE 32:24-30. God wrestles Jacob and wins by injuring Jacob's hip. You believe god wrestles? LE 11:6. You believe rabbits chew cud? LE 14:33-57. You believe that houses can have leprosy, and that the cure for this requires the blood of a bird? "Ehud ... took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out." You believe this literally happened? 2CH 7:5, 8-9. Solomon sacrificed 22k oxen and 120k in one week. That breaks out to more than 14 animals per minute (something like 4 seconds per animal), for seven straight days. You believe this happened? IS 30:26. The moon will someday be as bright as the sun now is. So you believe that a dead planet will once again come to life?

If you believe that the bible should be read literally, then do you believe these things should occur? You believe that adulterers should be stoned, and that a husband having sex with his wife during her period is an executable offense?: You talk about "literal" on one hand, and "context" on the other. Doesn't "context" imply room for interpretation? You've been asked several times what makes your interpretation "right", and anyone who reads the bible differently from you "wrong". Have you answered that question?

Ooh good ideas guys! DH and I do several things for her already that I should have included - because they're in line with some of your gift ideas. We've bought her a computer, and pay for her monthly internet access. We give her some money every month (she has no idea about this, it's auto deposited into her account, and she's not savvy when it comes to banking, so she has no idea it isn't just hers from somewhere). We also pay her cable bill. Ok, technically my parents pay her bills, but we fund the cable bill and my parents just tell her they paid it from her account. We also have her on our cell phone plan (she doesn't know about this either), so no worries about long distance calls. (We're the only people she'd call that don't live in a local area code). She does drive, but only in her own city limits, during the day, and when there's no snow on the ground. In any of those conditions she will only go out if someone she knows comes and picks her up. Anymore, she only goes to very familiar routes - church, grocery store, etc. Her mental health is fading and a few times when she has deviated into newer areas she has called someone crying b/c she's lost (you can get from one end of her town to the other in 15 minutes, so you're never that far from anywhere else). I wish I had time to get a movie together before the party. But that's a GREAT idea for next year. I had also considered pre-paid gas cards. Too practical? Maybe combined with a spa day? (And I agree about having company - she'd have to, b/c she wouldn't drive to a "real" city on her own...she lives in a very small town with only chain haircut stops, and the occasional "rent a booth" mom & pop operations).

My husband is that guy. Met and married when I was thin. As I ballooned up he never said anything about it. With my 20/20 hindsight I wish he would have. Suspicion wasn't an issue before we were married b/c I wasn't fat then. If I were single & dating now, and met a guy who said that, I'd like to think I'd know whether or not he was sincere. If I detected insincerity, I would mosty definitely be suspicious. Lots of potential for cruel ulterior motives there.

Ayuh, that was me. Nurse Manson and Nurse Infection, as my husband now refers to them. :doh:

I'm not a guy but I act like one and I'd do Angelina Jolie, so I'll post. The penis doesn't actually grow longer when you lose weight, although a LOT of men think (hope) it does. What happens is that the rest of the body "retreats" and makes it seem longer, and actually can expose more of the shaft. As an analogy, imagine pushing a straw down into a pillow. It's going to get a little "buried", and you're only going to see part of it. Now remove part of the pillow's stuffing, and - poof - from the outside it looks like your straw got longer, when in reality it's been the same length the entire time, it's just more exposed now. Not that I'd ever condone comparing a man to a straw.

Does anyone else remember a show called Bumpter Stumpers, where the strategy was to figure out as many plates as possible? (Or something like that).

Ok, apologies, but I'm going to veer OT for a second, because I'm truly curious about this. When you dream, are you fat or thin in your dreams? And when you picture yourself (e.g. put on an outfit and picture what it looks like), are you picturing fat you or thin you? I ask because - in my dreams, I'm always thin me, never fat me. And when I put something on and picture it, it's often thin me that I picture, at least for a second. And that's part of what makes this all such a miserable reality check... I can get it in my head that I look one way, and then see a picture of bit of video that acts like a slap in the face.

What do you mean they are the law in most states?

My initial goal is anything under 200 lbs. My eventual goal is 180. When I last weighed 180, I wanted to lose about 30 lbs, which seemed like an impossibly large amount of weight. When I see pictures of myself at 180, I'm like "What was I thinking?! I look fine!" I'm tall, just a smidge under 6 foot, and I know that at ~240 I wear a loose 20/taut 18. Or I did, at least. I would be thrilled with a 12 or 14, which for me is about 180. And 180 is the last weight that I felt comfortable about myself at. The bulk of my weight now is sitting in the area below my waist and above my knees. Hell, I can feel my vertebra now, and my shoulderblades, and have the "sunken stomach" look when I lay down -- which is just creepy. But that mid-section weight isn't budging. So I've become rather disproportionate -- about 2 or 3 sizes smaller on top than on bottom. I joke that I have a "diamond" shape (versus pear or ball), but it's really not much of a joke. And it's weird, because the one time I gained weight & lost it all I gained proportionately, and lost it proportionately. And when I gained before going on Atkins I gained proportionately and then lost proportionately. But this damn time my hips aren't going anywhere.