Pepsi


firehotemily
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My family doctor once told me that at least 98% of fat people's problems is a result of what he refers to as 'hand to mouth disease'. In other words, they're just simply eating too much.

Even family doctors can use hyperbole that is inaccurate. Simply knowing that some of your fellow posters are overweight, should give one pause from saying this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it's a meaningful distinction. We tell our children, "You can choose your actions, but you can't choose the consequences of your actions." We could equally well tell them, "When you choose your actions, you are choosing the consequences of those actions."

Yeah, but the criminal robbing the convenience store doesn't say 'I'm choosing 5-15 years in prison tonight'. He's saying 'I need money to buy drugs'. He doesn't see prison as the end result of robbing the store. He knows it may be a possibility, but he sure isn't counting on it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, you appear to be missing the point completely.

People gain weight because they eat stuff. If they don't eat, they don't gain weight.

Period. (That's "full stop" for you Brits.)

No exceptions.

This is true, even if they have diabetes, a thyroid condition, sleep apnea, and a nagging boss.

So if you see someone who is 200 pounds overweight (or 20 pounds, or 2 pounds), then you know beyond all doubt that those 200 (20, 2) pounds entered that person's body through his or her mouth.

That is the only possibility.

Ergo: No eaty food, no gainy weight.

It's not the bottom line. I'll grant that overeating and under-exercising may be the only reasons a person remains fat/obese over time, but that is not the only way the weight is initially gained. Case-in-point: me. I was on birth control for 10 months. In that time, I put on 45 pounds. At that time, 45 lbs. constituted 1/3 of my starting weight. After going off the pill, I continued to gain another 15 lbs. before leveling off, while the hormones worked their way out of my system. During those 10 months that I was taking the Pill daily, my exercise level was exactly the same as it had been before. My eating habits actually improved during that time. Except for the side effects from the medication, I should have been maintaining (or perhaps even losing a little) weight. I've now been off the Pill for over three years. I am still 60 lbs heavier than I was at the start. I don't deny that the reason I am still obese is because I lack self-control with food and motivation to exercise. But the weight gain was not a consequence of my eating or activity choices.

I have personally never known anyone who was fat because they had some disease.

Read about Cushing's disease. Read about hormonal and endocrine related diseases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or...no eaty food...no continue living. Me thinks....respectfully, that your assertions are not scientifically sound.

Well you are both right, kinda. If you are not eating, even if that means starving to death, chances are you aren't gaining weight. Actually with the way the laws of physics work the energy required to gain tissue (muscle or fat) has to come from somewhere, since we can't photosynthesize and water doesn't have calories you can't gain tissue without eating. The thing that keeps vort's statement from being true in all cases is that you can gain weight by retaining water which does not require energy like weight gain from tissue growth does. For instance even if I eat nothing if I drink a gallon of water... walla I just 'gained' ~8 lbs.

So it'd be more correct to say: If you don't eat or drink you don't gain weight. Of course you keep that up long enough and you die but that doesn't change the truthfulness of the statement. It does however, along with other consequences deemed less desirable than losing weight, have an impact on whether you choose that route. Anyone can lose weight by not eating or drinking. However, I can hardly blame them for choosing not to do so when the consequence is death.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even family doctors can use hyperbole that is inaccurate.

I trust my family doctor who I know works with this day in and day out. Why would he have any reason to lie to me about something like that? So he's lying just because it's something you don't agree with it? Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, this is so rare as to almost not be worth discussing.

I have diabetes. It's adult onset, I was considerably overweight and my mother had diabetes too, so that's another strike.

My point is that I got control of my blood sugar by dieting, and losing weight. My weight was causing my diabetes. I chose to be sick. I suppose there is the rare case where diabetes causes weight gain (but I doubt it), the correlation in diabetics is that being fat causes diabetes.

There are certain illnesses where excessive water can accumilate in the body etc etc, but that's not true obesity.

I have personally never known anyone who was fat because they had some disease. Like I say, it's really rare. Don't try to justify your own fatness by saying you can't help it. I cry Bull:rolleyes:.

Since you quoted me and now saying your, I'm hoping that this is more a generalized statement than directed totally at me. Because never did I try to justify anything about myself in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you quoted me and now saying your, I'm hoping that this is more a generalized statement than directed totally at me. Because never did I try to justify anything about myself in this thread.

Pam, this statement was not directed at you, but at the forum in general. I have no idea what you weigh.:)

My whole point is that I've talked to many people over the years that have said "I have this or that imbalance" to try to justify there over weight condition. Never heard one that was credible.

I know women on birth control, that are not fat.

I have a daughter in law with thyroid--not fat.

I could go on. Like I said before, I'm sure that there are some people that can't control their weight, but I have yet to meet them. It's really rare..........:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam, this statement was not directed at you, but at the forum in general. I have no idea what you weigh.:)

My whole point is that I've talked to many people over the years that have said "I have this or that imbalance" to try to justify there over weight condition. Never heard one that was credible.

I know women on birth control, that are not fat.

I have a daughter in law with thyroid--not fat.

I could go on. Like I said before, I'm sure that there are some people that can't control their weight, but I have yet to meet them. It's really rare..........:cool:

Apparently you live in an imaginary world, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the bottom line. I'll grant that overeating and under-exercising may be the only reasons a person remains fat/obese over time, but that is not the only way the weight is initially gained. Case-in-point: me. I was on birth control for 10 months. In that time, I put on 45 pounds. At that time, 45 lbs. constituted 1/3 of my starting weight. After going off the pill, I continued to gain another 15 lbs. before leveling off, while the hormones worked their way out of my system. During those 10 months that I was taking the Pill daily, my exercise level was exactly the same as it had been before. My eating habits actually improved during that time. Except for the side effects from the medication, I should have been maintaining (or perhaps even losing a little) weight. I've now been off the Pill for over three years. I am still 60 lbs heavier than I was at the start. I don't deny that the reason I am still obese is because I lack self-control with food and motivation to exercise. But the weight gain was not a consequence of my eating or activity choices.

I really don't know how to make my meaning any clearer than I have already tried to do, but I'll try again, just in case it helps this time.

Consider the following list:

  • I am overweight. I would guess I am at least 40 pounds heavier than when I graduated from high school. I do not hate myself for this fact (though I'm not happy about it), and I don't think I am an evil person because of this. Yet the fact is that I weigh more than I ought to BECAUSE I EAT TOO MUCH.
  • I am an American; thus, most of the people I know and most of the people I love are Americans. Most of the adults I know, and certainly most that are my age and older, are overweight. I do not think less of them for this fact or believe them morally deficient. But I am also perfectly well aware that the reason they are overweight is because they eat more food than they need.
  • I have never been to India, but I have known quite a number of Indians. Not a single one of them has been significantly overweight. Furthermore, of the Indians I have known, the ones that have been at all overweight are those who have lived in the US for some years and have become more accustomed to the US method of eating (lots and lots). I do not think of Indians as more virtuous than Americans, but I do think of them as smaller.
  • When I visited France, I saw many hundreds of people, possibly thousands. I noticed a great many fat tourists, especially Americans, but also Brits and Germans. I noticed very few fat French people, however. Significantly, I found the French way of eating devoted to small portions of very tasty but non-greasy, not-fatty foods. I do not believe the French to be morally superior to Americans, Brits, or Germans because of this, but I do think of them as thinner.

Now consider the following points:

  • People who eat a lot tend to be fatter than people who do not. This is not a veiled statistical difference, but an obvious and nearly universal difference, easily noticed by even a casual observer.
  • If you expend 1500 Calories in metabolic activity in a day and you consume food from which you derive 1500 Calories that day, it is impossible for you to have a net weight gain, except from water or non-digested food in your gut. Water and non-digested food in one's gut do not make one fat.
  • If you have Eating Pattern X at which you establish a steady and healthy weight, and then you experience a change in body chemistry or environment that causes your metabolism to slow, you will begin to gain weight if you continue to follow Eating Pattern X.
  • Being fat does not mean you are morally reprehensible, or weak, or ugly. It means you're fat.
  • If someone is fat, that fat came from somewhere. It did not enter the fat person by osmosis through the bath water or as a curse from the fairies. It entered by way of his or her mouth.
  • You can control what you put in your mouth.
  • No one requires you to eat more than your body needs to sustain itself. Therefore, your weight is under your control.

Seriously, what is so controversial about this? I am fat, and I am not happy about it, but I also don't pretend that my fatness is caused by factors outside my control. I am 100% responsible for being fat. I eat too much. This does not make me a bad person, or even decrease my worth. It means that I am responsible for being fat. And in 99.9% of cases, this is true with other people, too. Even those with a glandular condition.

If you eat much more than you need, you will get fat. If you stop eating more than you need, you will get thinner. That is not controversial; it is biology.

Obviously, I have touched a raw nerve for some people. I am sorry your feelings are hurt. Such was never my intent. But I don't apologize for the facts I said, because they are true. OF COURSE people are fat because they eat too much! How else would they GET FAT? But as I would rather not offend the list members, and as those who accept the truths I have stated already believe me and those who reject them will simply continue to refuse to admit what anyone can see by looking, I see no value in continuing to assert the trivially obvious.

My apologies for offending by my manner of speech.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leading preventable cause of death in the USA Smoking.

We pass laws strict laws against the Companies, advertising reform, tax increases prevention programs, let people get fired for failing a nicotine test etc.

Smoking rates have been reduced.

Obesity is the 2nd leading cause of preventable death and is continuing to grow while smoking rates fall. In fact obesity kills more then Alcohol, Infectious diseases, toxins, motor vehicular accidents, Firearms, STDs and drug abuse.

We have programs in place for these causes, schools, churches, publicly funded organizations,etc have lots prevention programs, PSA, training programs etc for fight them.

We have sex ed and D.A.R.E. but schools are cutting recess and P.E.

But when obesity is brought up "we" say "there are other factors," "hormonal imbalance" or another excuse we can come up with to not offend because in our society it is becoming "normal" We can complain about the stick thin modals who present a bad image for our kids but with 8 out of 10 Americans over the age of 25 being over weight it appears they have less influence then we give them. Perhaps we need to look at our mote.

Point is Obesity is a horrible "disease" like smoking. And like smoking the person with the disease isn't horrible, but the habit or "disease", itself. We will not be able to fight this disease by trying to apply a relatively obscure condition to the population at large or by complaining about the other extreme . The first thing we need to do is admit it is a problem and we seem to have a problem doing that.

We can't change that which we don't acknowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort I'm not offended by your words. I agree, the majority of Americans who are obese are because of their own choices in their life. I am overweight because of the choices of foods that I eat.

Americans live in a world of supersize me, dinner plates have grown. What are now salad plates used to be dinner plates.

I also think there are some that have medical reasons as to why they gain weight. But I also agree the numbers are probably not as large as some would like to think. I feel that that has become a cop out to many.

I've noticed I've gained 10 lbs since being unemployed. Haven't changed the way I eat, though my level of activity has dropped dramatically. Instead of on my feet 10-12 hours a day in constant motion, I find myself sitting more in front of the computer. Again my choice, my dealings.

So I find that your comments are valid in many ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would he have any reason to lie to me about something like that? So he's lying just because it's something you don't agree with it? Give me a break.

The use of unnecessarily harsh hyperbole is not so much lying as it is overstating a case. When he said "at least 98% of fat people's problems is a result of what he refers to as 'hand to mouth disease", he as trying to emphasize an idea to you rather than cite a valid statistic. By all means have faith in your doctor. Hope that is a sufficient break for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am sure. Genetics or illness might very possibly influence obesity, and it is even possible that for some very few people, the alternative to obesity would be even more severe disability or death. Nevertheless, the statement is true as written.

Here - first hand, personal experience with illnesses that cause lots of weight gain - I had undiagnosed Celiac Disease for 10 years. This disease causes all sorts of symptoms, but basically your body reacts to to gluten (from wheat, barley or rye all of which are used as preservatives in tons of foods as well as being the primary ingredients in things like bread). Basically the villi in your small intestine are destroyed so that you can't properly absorb food. People with this disease react in two ways 1) they become completely malnourished and thing because they can't absorb enough food or 2) everything your body manages to absorb is immediately stored as fat because your body thinks that is starving.

I was overweight with this disease yet I was hardly eating. Once I was diagnosed and cut gluten from my diet I immediately began to lose weight but was eating more calories than before. Hmm... Oh yeah, this disease - Celiacs Disease is one of the most undiagnosed diseases in the world. It is estimated that 1 out of 100 people have this disease and for every person that is diagnosed there are 9 others that are undiagnosed... Those sorts of stats tell me that there could be a lot of fat people that are fat because they have this disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Sulli. I googled it and what I found amazing is something that totally applies to me. Yet my gastroenterologist has never discussed this with me.

Mentions can be triggered the first time after a surgery. Years ago I started putting on weight and quite a bit of it. I kept telling my doctor that it started right after the surgery he performed. Eating habits hadn't changed, still doing all the same activity and a lot of it. He did all the blood work, never could find anything. But now it makes me wonder. Now I have numerous systems mentioned in the website.

Celiac Disease Symptoms - Celiac Disease Foundation

Not saying that's what it is..just seems amazingly coincidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the topics in Mormonism that has always been interesting to me because it shows what you really believe about prophets. Members in general seem to fall into two camps.

1) Some members believe that every word that a prophet speaks is as a representative of God. As a prophet he represents God and thus all things he says are the will of God and thus commandments.

2) Some members believe that a prophet is only speaking for God when he is speaking in meetings like general conference, thus things that he says at other times, or in other places are not necessarily commandments nor the will of God.

When I was a "good" member I believed number 1. In believing number 1 I felt that President Hinkley made it clear what he will of the Lord was with regard to caffeinated sodas and the Word of Wisdom when he was interviewed on Larry King Live. He basically said that we, as Mormons do not drink caffeinated soda.

There is also some scripture, the exact location escapes me that says something to the effective of, "whether by mine own voice or the voice of mine servants it is the same."

Now I bring this up not because I actually believe it, but because logic would say that if I as a member of the church believe that Pres. Hinkley was a prophet of God and said that Mormons don't drink caffeinated soda it would be like God said that we did not drink caffeinated soda.

I however am not a "good" member. Therefore I don't think God actually cares whether or not I drink caffeinated soda. Nor do I believe that drinking it will keep me out of heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Sulli. I googled it and what I found amazing is something that totally applies to me. Yet my gastroenterologist has never discussed this with me.

Mentions can be triggered the first time after a surgery. Years ago I started putting on weight and quite a bit of it. I kept telling my doctor that it started right after the surgery he performed. Eating habits hadn't changed, still doing all the same activity and a lot of it. He did all the blood work, never could find anything. But now it makes me wonder. Now I have numerous systems mentioned in the website.

Celiac Disease Symptoms - Celiac Disease Foundation

Not saying that's what it is..just seems amazingly coincidental.

You should get it checked out, and I mean right away. My quality of life increase a by about 100 fold after getting diagnosed. I had a lot of unexplained health issues that almost immediately disappeared. I had depression, I was tired all the time, had lots of stomach/gastro problems, migraines, weight gain, and insomnia that all left within weeks.

OH yeah- you mentioned bloodwork- not always reliable in diagnosis of this disease. They will have to do an endoscopy to check for villi damage in the small intestine... terrible procedure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will have to do an endoscopy to check for villi damage in the small intestine... terrible procedure...

Oh now there's motivation to run right out to have it checked out. lol But I've had everything else you mentioned except the migraines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NEW YORK – Some children get severely obese because they lack particular chunks of DNA, which kicks their hunger into overdrive, researchers report.

The British researchers checked the DNA of 300 children who'd become very fat, on the order of 220 pounds by age 10. They looked for deletions or extra copies of DNA segments.

They found evidence that several rare deletions may promote obesity, including one kind they studied further and found in less than 1 percent of about 1,200 severely obese children.

That deletion, on chromosome 16, apparently causes trouble because it removes a gene that the brain needs to respond to the appetite-controlling hormone leptin, said Dr. Sadaf Farooqi of Cambridge University.

In her study, children with a chromosome 16 DNA deletion "have a very strong drive to eat," said Farooqi, who co-led the research. "They're very, very hungry, they always want to eat."

The work, reported online Sunday by the journal Nature, has already produced a real-world payoff. Farooqi said four children with the chromosome 16 deletion had drawn the attention of British child welfare authorities, who blamed the parents for overfeeding them.

"We were able to intervene" and get the parents of two children off the hook, and the other two cases are under discussion, she said.

That's happened before when the scientists uncovered genetic causes for severe childhood obesity, she said.

"It's a slightly unusual outcome of our research, but one we think is very important," she said.

While scientists had previously discovered particular genes that promote obesity when damaged, the new work looked at larger chunks of DNA that can span several genes. The chromosome 16 deletion includes nine genes.

Eric Ravussin, an obesity expert at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., who wasn't involved in the study, said the work provides "a gold mine of information." That's because it identifies specific chromosome areas that scientists can explore to discover obesity-related genes, he said.

___

On the Net:

Nature: Journal home : Nature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the topics in Mormonism that has always been interesting to me because it shows what you really believe about prophets. Members in general seem to fall into two camps.

1) Some members believe that every word that a prophet speaks is as a representative of God. As a prophet he represents God and thus all things he says are the will of God and thus commandments.

2) Some members believe that a prophet is only speaking for God when he is speaking in meetings like general conference, thus things that he says at other times, or in other places are not necessarily commandments nor the will of God.

When I was a "good" member I believed number 1. In believing number 1 I felt that President Hinkley made it clear what he will of the Lord was with regard to caffeinated sodas and the Word of Wisdom when he was interviewed on Larry King Live. He basically said that we, as Mormons do not drink caffeinated soda.

There is also some scripture, the exact location escapes me that says something to the effective of, "whether by mine own voice or the voice of mine servants it is the same."

Now I bring this up not because I actually believe it, but because logic would say that if I as a member of the church believe that Pres. Hinkley was a prophet of God and said that Mormons don't drink caffeinated soda it would be like God said that we did not drink caffeinated soda.

I however am not a "good" member. Therefore I don't think God actually cares whether or not I drink caffeinated soda. Nor do I believe that drinking it will keep me out of heaven.

Don't "beat yourself up" about being a bad Mormon. Camp 1 is wrong.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Church even says so.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Thank you for the quote. It is useful. This would need to be an entirely different thread but my comment is that there are lots of things that would not be considered doctrine if we only looked at the standard works, declarations, proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. (Are tattoos ok? Are double pierced ears ok? For heavens sake, if we interpret the Word of Wisdom as written beer is ok. So are those really the only places that doctrine comes from?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Thank you for the quote. It is useful. This would need to be an entirely different thread but my comment is that there are lots of things that would not be considered doctrine if we only looked at the standard works, declarations, proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. (Are tattoos ok? Are double pierced ears ok? For heavens sake, if we interpret the Word of Wisdom as written beer is ok. So are those really the only places that doctrine comes from?)

Depends on your emphasis.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

or

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Thank you for the quote. It is useful. This would need to be an entirely different thread but my comment is that there are lots of things that would not be considered doctrine if we only looked at the standard works, declarations, proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. (Are tattoos ok? Are double pierced ears ok? For heavens sake, if we interpret the Word of Wisdom as written beer is ok. So are those really the only places that doctrine comes from?)

I think you might be confusing doctrine and policy. For instance, the doctrine of the Word of Wisdom is that we should eat healthy and live healthy so that our minds and bodies will be able to perform their work. The policies regarding how we interpret the Word of Wisdom have changed over the years as society and the list of available substances have changed.

Doctrine never changes, but because society does, sometimes the policies on how we follow the doctrine need adjustment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay my brother keeps trying to drink caffeinated drinks like pepsi and energy drinks, but his excuse is "Dad drinks it so why can't I?" I'm frustrated because my family does go to church and believe in it but my brother thinks it's okay to drink this. Help me explain to him how it's bad any advice?

Adding to others have already stated of what is good for you and what is not, let you know many of the brethren do drink soda. However, each to their own decision and have the agency to choose for themselves what is healthy for my temple [body] and what is not. Remember, this will not stop anyone from entering the gates of the Celestial Kingdom.

Now. following blindly another person is only revealing self-esteem issues, it also adds excuses over a weakness.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share