John wrote: > If one eats nearly all the time -- > postponement is a good thing.
Well, that certainly is true. If someone is eating all the time, he needs to stop that. John wrote: > If one thinks to stop at Burger King for the third > time today, postponement is a good thing. But it would be better not to eat at Burger King at all. That is better than postponement. John wrote: > And it is not eating more often, David; it is > eating smaller meals more often -- > postponement working again. In my experience with eating frequently, smaller meals comes naturally. But maybe you mean discipline more than postponement. We should lead discplined lives, but postponing to do what is bad for us is not a solution to the problem. It is better to recognize what is bad and stop it. John wrote: > If I think to eat a candy bar after hours, > postponement is a good thing. Eating a candy bar after hours would be worse than eating a candy bar earlier in the day. The better solution is to skip the candy bar entirely. You don't need it if it is not good for you. If eating it in moderation is healthy, then go ahead, but is sin in moderation a good thing or a bad thing? Who needs sin? John wrote: > And why do I think it will work with sin -- > because I am told that if I flee youthful lusts, > I will have victory Right... FLEE youthful lusts, not postpone them. The whole idea of describing them as youthful is the idea that they should be put away, the same way an adult no longer desires to play with toys like children do. When a man flees youthful lusts, he will develop character that is not lustful. Do you agree? John wrote: > The addict, if not miraculously delivered (and most > [say 99%] are not), his only hope is sin management > -- postponement. I've worked with a lot of addicts, John. This works about as well as diets work for the obese. They always fall back into it and the addictions become worse than they were before. I will hear Terry on this matter over you. He speaks from the experience of success. I don't know where you get the 99% failure figure from. We certainly have greater success than that with addicts. John wrote: > If the postponement is successful, he can build on that success. Theoretically, but how much success have you had with this postponement method? How many addicts are no longer addicts? How long did it take them to move from postponement to elimination? John wrote: > THE number one reason why I do not believe in > sinless perfectionism is YOU. Again, I repeat, I do not believe in sinless perfectionism. If you cannot understand what I believe or how I live, why do you use me as an excuse to continue in sin? Are you sure you are not saying this to try and insult me? You have planted that idea in my head with a recent post. John wrote: > That's it. You is the reason for the season. I think > it funny that you equate "humility" with my giving > attention to you or people like you. Arrogance, > pride and conceit plague us all, don't they David? Yes, and some of us have victory over these things while others try and massage their conscience that nothing more can be done than what is already being done. John wrote: > Back to "postponement." Eatng is not my only issue -- > and the management principle has, in deed, worked in a > number of areas in my life. Well, if not in fat management, what areas do you have in mind? I'm not completely against the concept. I just don't see that it works with either fat or sin. So tell us, in what areas have you had success with it? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
