Being Poor Is More Expensive Than You'd Think @alternet

Being Poor Is More Expensive Than You'd Think @alternet: For giant corporations, there's big money to be made on the backs of those who have no money. Poor people are cash cows. It makes no sense, really. One would think that poor people, by virtue of being poor, would not be profitable customers. However, for many large corporations that target the poor and working poor, there's big money to be made on the backs of those who have no money.

The Cheese Grates It: Fat Shaming, Thin Praising, ED and Me

The look when a bunch of fat shaming "jokes" show up in your FB feed from people who should know better

The Cheese Grates It:

Fat Shaming, Thin Praising, ED and me

Trigger Warning:

Eating disorders

Diet Talk

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I'm a proponent of the Underpants Rule created by Ragen Chastain:

You are the boss of your own underpants. You are free to do with your body as you see fit.

You are not free to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

If you belittle other people's bodies, you are not some sort of champion of "health." You're a dick.

Also, while I believe in the Underpants Rule, I am under no obligation to be anyone's dieting cheerleader. I'll support people in other ways, but I'm not going to engage in Thin Praising any more than I will engage in fat shaming. I find both to be toxic.

I don't unfollow people for posting about dieting, but I do hide dieting posts. My eating disorder and I don't need to see that.

If anyone's curious about what exact eating disorder I have, the specific diagnosis is "Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." It primarily resembles bulimia in the way it manifests.

I tend to binge and then starve myself rather than bingeing and purging.

However, sometimes I binge without starving afterward (not as often since I was diagnosed with diabetes), and sometimes I starve without bingeing first.

Starvation bouts (I'm going through one right now) can also be triggered when I skip meals because I simply don't have enough money to eat. Then when it comes time that I could eat, I don't eat because now I'm in the old Pro-Ana mode, which has mantras like "hunger hurts but starvation works."

Funnily enough, even though I often end up eating 1000 calories a day or less, I'm still fat. This isn't a lament, it's a simple observation of the fact that "calories in calories out" is an oversimplification of what really happens. There are many components to a person's body type. Energy intake and output is only a small part of the equation, or there wouldn't be any fat people. Seriously, would anyone choose to be fat in a society that treats us like shit on a daily basis simply for existing? If "eat less and exercise more" worked, pretty much everyone would already be thin. Also, you think we haven't already tried that MANY times, Asshole? Duh!

Another factor in my size is doubtless due to the fact that from the time I was twelve until I was 45, I went on numerous weight reduction diets. The end result each time was gaining back the weight I'd lost plus about 20 pounds more. I literally had to stop dieting to keep myself from gaining more weight. Once I stopped dieting, my weight stabilized. Once my diabetes was recognized and I started treating it, I lost approximately 50 pounds within two years without trying. Again, this is not an attempt to praise myself for weight loss, it's a simple statement of fact and also proof for the argument that "calories in calories out" is an oversimplification.

By the way, I'm not obsessive about carb counting or avoiding dessert. I don't have the money to be particularly choosy about what I eat these days. I eat what I can afford. When I do have the money to be more selective, I try to choose food items that have a lower glycemic impact (i.e. high fiber foods) as opposed to a low carb count per se, but I'm not obsessed with it. If I want something that has more than the recommended allotment of carbs, I'll eat it with middle finger on high to the Diet Police. Life is too damn long to choose only what makes you miserable.

Right now I'm trying to fight the old "hunger hurts but starvation works" mantra with "hunger hurts and starvation doesn't work. I'm allowed to feed my needs."

Maybe this will help somebody. I don't know.

All I know is that none of us deserve to be hated on or berated for our bodies, people who fat shame are ignorant and/or assholes, and thin praising is insidious. Thin praising is the flip side of the fat shaming coin. Both are telling us that large bodies are bad. Both are wrong.

Also, I'm trying to divorce ED. He's a shitty life partner.

~The Cheese Hath Grated It~

Om Shanti Shanti Shanti Om

Extremists

Extremists of any stripe are wrong. They defecate on the floor of the domicile we live in while we tolerate their unpleasantness before cleaning up after them. Yet we should ask what is extremism,  what is terror? Is not war terror given legitimacy by nations seeking to justify murder under the fraudulent flag of democracy? A nation who wages war on another country, their bombs tearing apart men, women and children are committing an act of terror no less evil than that of those we call terrorists or extremists. There can be no justification for slaughtering innocents.

The flaw with all Extremists is that their thinking is fundamentally flawed. In reality, they manifest their gross, often violent attributes, onto their God of choice then cherry pick sections from their holy books to support the things they do. They all seem hell bent on extracting the very worst, typically human and very ungodlike parts the better to support the heinous things they do. Their major hang-up is sex. Well, okay one of their major hang ups. What is ironic is that the word 'fornication' is not a Hebrew word. It owes its roots to the Indo-European word gwher. It has little do with sex though as its literal translation means...

"Old English beornan, byrnanbærnan (transitive), to burn; b. brimstone, from late Old English brynstn, “burning mineral,” sulfur (stn, stone; see stei-); c. brindled, from Old Norse brenna, to burn. a–c all from Germanic *brennan (intransitive) and brannjan (transitive), formed from *brenw."  The Latin, Fornix, which relates to prostitutes. It is again very possible that the word 'fornication' gets lost in translation.

If you seek justification for the violence within you then the Bible and Koran supply that. This needs addressing. The only people able to do this are Priests and Imams, by those who preach their faith in good faith, in the belief that their faiths are loving faiths, not factories where those seeking justification for their violent thoughts find vindication.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor a person who commits extortion will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body". - Corinthians 6:18 - King James Bible

"ONE SHOULD NOT PLACE CATTLE IN HEATHENS' INNS BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF IMMORAL PRACTICE WITH THEM. A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS, NOR SHOULD A MAN BE ALONE WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF SHEDDING BLOOD."

Cattle? 

Really?

What is it with sex that causes them such consternation? The Old Testament clearly thinks sex is a pleasant enough distraction as shown by this beautiful poem


Song of Solomon

1:1 The song of songs, which is Solomon's.

1:2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

1:3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore, do the virgins love thee.

1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

1:5 I am black but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

1:6 Look not upon me, because I am black because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

1:7 Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?

1:8 If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock and feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents.

1:9 I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots.

1:10 Thy cheeks are comely with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold.

1:11 We will make thee borders of gold with studs of silver.

1:12 While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof."

Extremists have a dislike of homosexuals that borders pathological hatred. So obsessed are they with its apparent sinfulness that some countries still stone gays. This makes me wonder what they are so scared of? Could it be some secret hidden truth? That homosexual love is as valid as heterosexual? One Evangelist, renown for his talks and debates, suggests that homosexuality is as unnatural for men to love each other, women too, as it is for fish to smoke cigars. They say the act goes against God's will. I disagree. Homosexuality exists within nature. Other animals also commit this sin. If it is a sin and since the natural world is the creation of God then why did He create it? Is He such an awful designer that his design is flawed or is the flaw the judgemental thought process of the bigot?

Could it be that when these books were either written or transcribed that birth control wasn't available? That sexually transmitted diseases were prevalent? This would have meant all manner of people having crippling, life-threatening diseases or alternatively plentiful offspring. Was this not the common sense of its time? The only exception to that would be the bias toward Homosexuals but even that might have been from health issues. 

With the world's population growing at an alarming rate, with a planet capable of supporting one billion people comfortably currently supporting seven billion and forecast to double by the middle of this century, a tragedy is waiting to happen. By the year 2050 food will be in short supply for all human life. It will no longer be a case of poor black people starving nor poor Indians but a global problem affecting Europe, America, Canada and the rest of the world. Could it then be that God in His ultimate wisdom has selected homosexuals as being a natural way of decreasing childbirth? Sure, gays can adopt, they can even have surrogate or self-inseminated births but still, Gays progeny is far less than that of heterosexuals.

Again we see where the unlearned and those unprepared or reluctant to see the history of the texts are able to pervert its historical integrity into something mean spirited and apparently contemporaneous.

They don't much like females either although I think perhaps they do but are incapable of managing their own sexual desires, unable to keep the cock in the coup preferring to let it wander in the hen house. 

“Enjoin believing women to turn their eyes away from temptation and to preserve their chastity; not to display their adornments (except such as are normally revealed); to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to display their finery except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their step-sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women-servants, and their slave-girls; male attendants lacking in natural vigour, and children who have no carnal knowledge of women. And let them not stamp their feet when walking so as to reveal their hidden trinkets.” - Quran 24:31

The vagina is the altar of life. It is a thing to worship not deride. Men throughout history have used derogatory terms for the vagina. Gropecunt Lane was a famed London street where prostitutes plied their trade. There are many other pejorative words, an endless number, in fact, that suggest that man's love of that female body part is also his fear of the same. What he worships is what he fears - just like God.

Nor is the beauty of women a thing to be hidden away. If men cannot cope with bare flesh then perhaps they should wear blinkers. I think some already do for they only see in those trusted tramlines of a convention, of a male made convenience. It is all about power, though. Men being notoriously insecure they, when in the governance and regulations of Fundamentalists, are able to control their own dark urges by subjugating and oppressing females. This is not a characteristic showing strength but a fatal weakness. They also aren't that keen on others who don't follower their faith going so far as to committing murder and worse, genocide in what is effectively ethnic cleansing.

"We beg Thee, O Lord, indict Thy wrath on the nations not believing in Thee, and not calling on Thy name. Let down Thy wrath on them and inflict them with Thy wrath. Drive them away in Thy wrath and crush them into pieces. Take away, O Lord, all bone from them. In a moment indict all disbelievers. Destroy in a moment all foes of Thy nation. Draw out with the root, disperse and ruin unworthy nations. Destroy them! Destroy them immediately, in this very moment!"  

Prayer said on the eve of Passover  (Pranajtis: Christianus in Talmudae Judeorum, quotations from Synagoga Judaica)


Nature makes waves. Tsunami's that remove parked cars from corporate car parks like a Giant fist before tossing them into the swelling sea. This is not God and yet, if God is in everything, it is, even if only remotely. The extremist does not see God and nature as one but as two separate articles with one being the tool by which God metes out judgment. 

He sees only the 'word' of God and by that I mean the word as written in the text of his or her perceived Holy Book. What they read is what they want to believe. They do not want, either because they are too lazy or indifferent, to look beyond the words. They do not lack interest but they lack the motivation to see beyond the initial meaning, the symbolism inherent in the text put there originally by those who first wrote those texts centuries before. This means, by shallow disregard, they are then allowed by default and therefore by implied divine rectitude, to follow to the letter that which they have read which they then manifest in their minds to fulfil their needs and to serve their desire to kill. This means they can carry out the most brutal of deeds because God's word is being fulfilled.

This very act of carrying out 'Gods Will' diminishes God, it usurps His power implying He is powerless. A supreme being needs no others to act for Him as He, and He alone has ultimate power. The slaughter of one human being by execution is a crime beyond measure.  The genocidal leanings of those who use God to enable extreme prejudice, as a shield, sword and divine sanction for such evils are not themselves good they are in fact evil and are working for Lucifer, working on behalf of Iblis. They are servants of Satan not God.

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Theology and Theologians

"Those who have one foot in the canoe and one foot in the boat

are going to fall into the river." - Tuscarora Tribe

Since starting this chapter, having read, listened to and digested the works of John Spong, Tom Harpur and Karen Armstrong. My views on theology have, are, changing. That said, there are many, unlike the magisterial Mister Spong (who's very presence makes me want to convert as his devotion to his faith is absolute) who are far less questing, far less able, than he.

Oddly, although I walked away from my mother's Christian upbringing aged thirteen, the subject I was best at school was RE. Religious Education filled me with an unrivalled wonder. I rather histrionically tore apart the Bible given me at my Christening saying it was the stuff of bullies and hypocrites. I said this then as I believed it to be true. To be told as a child that if you did something someone else found wrong that you would burn forever in purgatory was despicable. That conduct visited on me and many others by priests and vicars was an abuse. 

I am grateful to those who invoked in me a sense of youthful moral outrage. They made me question everything I was told or taught. In that, I have not changed. I read the Bible and found it very wanting.  I did not have the good fortune to have met during my school days the likes of someone like Bishop John Spong. I wish I had. I would now be an Anglican Priest.

As my Grandfather once wrote in my autograph book, scribbled down circa 1963, 'love conquers all.' Sadly, as a child, I saw little love described in the Bible but what appeared to be a whole lot of hate. Hate for anyone not born Jewish, or out of wedlock, or who didn't practise sex in the missionary position, or who masturbated, or who swore, or who didn't dress in the prescribed manner that ensured arrival in heaven was guaranteed. I now realise that those who preached this foul doctrine did so without having studied theology. 
   

Theology is the study of a deity. That is one take on the term. When Plato used the word it was meant as a discourse on God. Varro, the Latin writer, used the word as being when you study or discuss mythology. Some even insert the word rational into what is patently not something rational at all. As we already know we cannot either prove nor disprove the existence of a deity, not even one who is meant to have created everything. 

So then theology.

Theology. The study of God.

Right.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

 It is very difficult to find any serious body of people who during the course of Theology do not discuss faith. Often those in discussion seek not only to learn by rote quotations and edifying fictions that purport to support their beliefs, but who wield the improbable knowledge like some rusty axe over the heads of others suggesting that they know something we don't. In some ways they do and, before I go any further, let it be said much of what they have learnt is of particular interest to me even though a great many seek not to share or impart knowledge but seek only self-glorification.

“Usually, when someone believes in a particular religion, his attitude becomes more and more a sharp angle pointing away from himself. In our way, the point of the angle is always toward ourselves.” - Shunryu Suzuki



I  confess to admiring some theologians. Usually, it is those that speak some semblance of sense. Many don't. Many miss the context the words were written in. Those ones are the ones who tend to smile a lot. No one knows quite why they are smiling but the inference is they really do know something the rest of us don't and are very happy that we don't although they rather wished we did which in itself is confusing. The other major problem I have is that so often those claiming to be Theologian's are nothing but people who study the Bible.  That is to say King James much amended, censored and hugely altered version. These so call Theologians are unable to read Greek let alone Aramaic. The trouble is that numbered among the detectives, those who pry and research and dig deep into scriptures are those who refuse to see anything other than that which their preconditioned minds have been formulated to receive. These folks accept almost blindly the gospels without question. Such abject stupidity begs torrents of verbal abuse and scorn especially when confronted with members of their own group who do the very opposite.

A friend of mine, whose name I shall not reveal, is both Theologian and Evangelist. He is a good man. He has studied the Bible. He knows it inside out, from back cover to final amen. His knowledge of that book is impressive. The fundamental flaw in his thinking, his way of thinking, it is that it is so excepting of all said in the Bible without having all the prerequisite tools imperative to fully understand the whole of the subject. Not just the scriptures but the times the age they were written in. Also required is an empathetic understanding of the men, the Hebrew's, who compiled these works for it is only by having a holistic view and a keen grasp of how they wrote, how they embellished tales by means of rich symbolisms, can we in this day and age fully grasp what it was they were trying to say.

Another evangelist whose works and whose thoughts fly in the face of nature and, therefore, God is James White. How so? If God made everything then nature too must be his divine work.  As He created man so, therefore, did he create man's inherent foibles? That being the case why didn't He do a better job when making sexuality?  I was told when I was young that the only decent way to have sex was in the missionary position and that masturbation sends young men blind. I do wear glasses and judging by my sexual predilections will not be entering the Kingdom of Heaven less it is with a white cane and a copy of the Karma Sutra.  I am heterosexual. I have friends, a family who aren't followers of any faith. They are all very loving.  If homosexuals are wrong why then did God make such creatures throughout the kingdom of nature? Nature is riddled with bisexuality. Are we not part of nature?

Doctor White's rhetoric against homosexuals is as vile as imaginable. His body language the very opposite of John Spong of whom he debates. White is aggressive. He is everything I dislike in stereotypical Christians. He knows without the knowledge and what he does know he is tub-thumping about. He is forceful and brash. He portrays God as some lunatic with trembling finger on the button marked Armageddon. He says he is not homophobic, that he is merely following the texts within the Bible. These two opposites, Spong and White, illustrate perfectly what I have always thought to be Christian. Spong is loving, gentle and what I think of as Jesus-like while White is the bible bashing preacher whose words are boomed out like the clash of cymbals. One makes you want to embrace the Christian faith, the other run away from it in terror.  

The trouble is when confronted with such people who refuse to accept the facts of life as we know them, who continue to support branches of religion that are in themselves, if not objectionable, questionable, all kudos is washed away. Brainwashed boffins are not boffins at all merely brainwashed. 

I have often lambasted theology and theologians from forming what can be an exclusive club. I was wrong about theology but not wrong about all theologians who do precisely that which I describe. However, I now see why having the Bible translated into common English so the common man could read it was, although right, ill-advised and poorly delivered. The idea, though noble and honest was done without fully appreciating the ramifications. Without the learned to guide those that read such books, be they Muslim, Christian or Jew, they can too easily be accepted at face value. This, in turn, grants an opportunity to leaders of religion to assert their perverse understandings onto those less educated. This effectively leads to having a 'fed' congregation whose acceptance is a literal rather than symbolic one. Far better to have an effective teaching methodology that commits education to the process, that brings into that process a full spectrum of understanding, layers of subtle meaning. of not just the texts as they are but the symbolisms behind them but also an appreciation of those that wrote them and the times they lived in. Without such clear thinking, all becomes nothing but brainwashing.

"Brainwashed in our childhood
Brainwashed by the school
Brainwashed by our teachers
 Brainwashed by all their rules
Brainwashed by our leaders
By our Kings and Queens
Brainwashed in the open
 Brainwashed behind the scenes

 God God God
You are the wisdom that we seek
God God God
The lover that we miss
God God God
Your nature is eternity
God God God
You are Existence, Knowledge, Bliss"

- George Harrison

  

In some ways, it is rather sad seeing adults forced into retreat having heard them announce what they say is correct only for some other equally well read and learned theologian to discredit. I mention again John Spong. I could just as easily quote from Tom Harpur. Both men are learned. Both men, with very different views, having revalued former teaching, now cast greater doubts than Thomas on the accuracy of theological debate and, therefore, the Christian religion. This is not wrong. It does not diminish that faith but strengthens it. Challenging old texts or re-reading and correcting inaccurate translations only proves that out of myth comes a kernel of truth.

The one thing to remember, although contemporary scholars are aware of it and modern theologians too, is the burning of scriptural texts prior to the third and fourth century. These despicable acts which have robbed us of so much evidence and reading matter have ensured, not in totality it has to be said, a swathe of that which disproves huge amounts of what theologians learn and then declare to be factual as being false.

You see, much of what the biblical Jesus was meant to have done was, in fact, nothing less than old stories regurgitated. Some not only hundreds of years older than the period when Jesus lived but thousands, telling the same stories theologians now learn to presumably teach young children and which were fictional then and remain so today.  There are no less than one hundred and eighty parallels between what Horus, the Egyptian God was meant to have said and the words now promoted as being those of Jesus. Who was it said 'I am the way, the truth, and the life'? Jesus, right?  Those self-same words and in the same context were first uttered, well, written, at least, two thousand years before the Bible reported them as being the words of Jesus.

As with any intelligent person, there are many paths you can take. Theology is no different. On one hand, you find those that do not accept on first telling anything no matter how devout they may be. They question, they ask, they delve. They have minds that are inquisitive, God-given minds. They are like detectives who dig deep unravelling fact from fiction, and Lord knows the two do get comingled. They trawl through old documents reading Hebrew manuscripts and spotting inconsistencies. This is surely right? On the other hand, you have those who accept all which allows them, in turn, to appear superior.

"Heaven and earth are like a set of bellows.

Although empty, they are endlessly productive.

The more you work them, the more they produce.

The mouth, on the other hand, becomes exhausted if you talk too much.

Better to keep your thoughts inside you." -Lao Tzu

Oddly, although I mock theologians as they, in turn, mock myth, without them, without the rebels within their enclaves, I wouldn't appreciate that the way we now speak of myth, as an ancient tool for communicating truths, is not how we conceived myth. Once myth was entwined with reality. It contained truth wrapped in the legend for that was how wisdom was passed on. It described the spirituality of the thing but not without dressing it up a bit first. What some modern day theologians do literally is to accept what once was a myth that contained a message as being literal and, therefore, should be thought as such, accepted as such and taught as such. What they are doing is presenting the myth without distilling its grains of wisdom effectively perverting messages to suit their ends.

Some Theologians disguise the truth to enable them to either present themselves as being better, more knowledgeable in the way old time priests could read Latin to preach to the common man, The same could be said of Imam's who preach Arabic to Asian's. It doesn't make sense. Language is not something any sort of God created. It is as man-made as chocolate. Any God worth His or Her salt would be able to speak all languages if not at the same time. Language can be a method of communication. It can also be a way to cloud information when it needs interpreting. This returns me to that sense of power. Many, not all, theologians want either power or a sense of self-satisfying smugness. I have no time for either.

"Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Walk beside me that we may be as one." - Native American saying

Still, without the likes of John Spong, I would not be able to offer any opinion as he can read Hebrew, or has the ability to have it read correctly to him, whereas I don't. Thanks to John Spong, whose Lectures on the Books of John are revelatory. I no longer think he is the exception. Tom Harpur and Karen Armstrong too are theologians who challenge accepted views and back them up with substantial evidence. They, among others, have drastically changed my views. I find Karen Armstrong a little too attached to the mysticism of faith, a little too understanding of Evangelical warmongering and perhaps a little too twee, a little tied to the apron strings of religion. She tends to act as an apologist for Christianity and is far too lenient of Islamic fundamentalists. It seems to me that what she is attempting to do is distill the good parts from all faiths, throwing out the bad, and then merging that distillation into one singular faith. Not for me, I am afraid as it only takes that which exists with a personal deity into one gargantuan religion. We do not need religion. That said, she is still a learned individual deserving respect.

Theology then: fine when it challenges itself seeking to find the ultimate God - truth. Not so when it allows popinjays to exploit fables extolling them as fact. After all, Knowledge is a deadly friend when in the hands of fools.At the end of the day studying scriptures, who said what to whom; what was meant by this or that person or who really was the 'Beloved Disciple' in John's gospels, none of that matters at all. I guess when the truth is told the reason I struggled, and still do, with theology, is that it presents itself in a rather grandiose, elevated mode which it then extends to its practitioners. It establishes yet another hierarchy for something mundane which seeks nor needs elevating. It allows common folk to think that by having knowledge that they then have a right of over reason. They don't. The two are one and the same. Only those who practise religion sunder the two. Faith, reason and science are indistinguishable. They act as one, they work as one. It is the only man who subdivides them into counter reactionary forces the better to suit his manifestation.

I have previously, and on early posts, said how I disliked the way the Church, Catholic then, did not want the common man to read the Bible. I said this was wrong and still hold it to be so. If the few have the ability to read that which the many follow there is an obvious danger of misusing the texts for corrupt purposes. This is exactly what happened. That said, by publishing the Bible in a language all could read, brings with it another problem, one equally fraught with dangers. Without the knowledge or education to understand the ancient scriptures that use such potent symbolism those texts take on a far more prosaic meaning, one that isn't how they should be read. Therein lies a knotty problem, one which we can see the fruits of with Muslim extremists. 

Personally, I see no value in having a philosophical theory dressed up and called theology placed into university unless it is under the philosophy banner. Great fun to debate but at the end of the day, at the core of faith, all faiths, is one sentiment in one single sentence - seek the truth.  Theology is the study of God, a deity who might or might not exist. It is a philosophical study and should be in the curriculum as such.

The Cheese Grates It: Medical Size Shaming Harms, Does Not Help Patients

This post is in response to an article by Dr. Jennifer Gaudiani.

http://theprojectheal.org/binge-eating-disorder-stigma/#comment-254

I wish I could find a doctor in the Denver area who has a weight-neutral philosophy when dealing with patients.

I have multiple endocrine problems. Following menopause, my thyroid, which was a major factor in my weight gain, started doing something new. This, as well as properly treating my diabetes, has led to weight loss for which I wasn't trying. However, I am still a big person.

Thyroid medication tends to cause blood pressure elevation (as you know) and I probably have idiopathic hypertension anyway, as it runs in my family. I have been out of one of my BP meds for three weeks. The pharmacy claims that the doctor won't authorize it, the doctor claims they have never been contacted by the pharmacy.

I went to the doctor to try and get this resolved.

His solution was "if you'd just lose 5 pounds..."

I said I'd lost more than 50 pounds in the past couple of years without trying, and my weight has been all over the place my entire life."

I was distraught and disgusted at not being listened to. I did something which I hadn't done in a long time: I binged on a couple of boxes of crackers and a pint of ice cream. Great for my diabetes, I know. I couldn't make myself care.

This is why I really need a weight neutral practitioner. This kind of shit undoes the good that I've tried to do for the sake of my diabetes. I'm not perfect, but I try not to binge. However, I'm also not trying to lose weight. I can't go back on the self-loathing yo-yo dieting roller coaster.

People deserve to be treated with compassion and dignity regardless of their size.

The Cheese Hath Grated It

The Cheese Grates It: Freaky Fabulous

This picture appeared in a group that I (sometimes wonder why I'm part of) on Facebook with the caption "say one word." 

The expectation was that the words said would be something mean.

I said more than one word.

This is what I said.

Fabulous! If that's how he likes to roll, it doesn't mean everyone else has to. Why be mean? He may not have the money to afford really nice things, so he makes his style with what he has. Sometimes the people we think look "weird" are the nicest people, where the ones who look all "buttoned down" are uptight jerks.

A lot of the people in this group are "devout Christians."

I've discovered that "devout Christians" are often the most mean-spirited, unaccepting lot, which is why I tend to avoid them.

A society that bases a person's worth on an arbitrarily decided "acceptable" appearance tends to be an unhealthy society.

The Cheese Hath Grated It