Acts 10:9-15 The next day, as they were on their way and coming near Joppa, Peter went up on the roof of the house about noon in order to pray.  (10) He became hungry and wanted something to eat; while the food was being prepared, he had a vision.  (11) He saw heaven opened and something coming down that looked like a large sheet being lowered by its four corners to the earth.  (12) In it were all kinds of animals, reptiles, and wild birds.  (13) A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat!” (14) But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord! I have never eaten anything ritually unclean or defiled.” (15) The voice spoke to him again, “Do not consider anything unclean that God has declared clean.”

Romans 14:2-3 Some people’s faith allows them to eat anything, but the person who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables.  (3) The person who will eat anything is not to despise the one who doesn’t; while the one who eats only vegetables is not to pass judgment on the one who will eat anything; for God has accepted that person.

I’m pretty sure Gov. Huckabee is not saying everyone needs to be supermodels; that would be putting words into his mouth.  I think Gov. Huckabee just supports people staying healthy and fit as he had to learn the importance of that the hard way.  Besides what’s controversial about a study and encouraging people to eat healthy?  It’s not like he’s demanding it with threat of criminal penalty.

theo,

I think the issue might be that Huckabee is suggesting that the heftier among us are somehow morally inferior.  That is a controversial claim for a person in public office to make.  I too laud his efforts in convincing people to take better care of themselves.  However, I agree with Brock that to make one’s eating and exercise habits a moral issue is stretching things a bit far.

My point by showing the scripture was that the governor was incorrect to call it an outright sin. God and Gov. Huckabee do not believe everyone is supposed to be a supermodel.  That was my only point.  Beyond that I see nothing wrong with legislation to encourage healthy living.

I don’t think that anyone was suggesting that God and Gov. Huckabee thought everyone was supposed to be a super-model.  It seems that Brock was only demonstrating how silly it is to say that there’s a body shape that people are supposed to be by comparing Huckabee to the fashion industry.  Also, I think the point was that Huckabee was wrong to call obesity a sin.  As for encouraging healthy living, both Brock and I agree that such was a good thing.  I just thought it was wrong to suggest that being fat is sinful Brock seemed to suggest that the reason Huckabee thought healthy living should be encouraged was faulty.  I would assume that Brock is suggesting that healthy living is itself a worthy goal and suggesting that service to God as a reason for being healthy is silly.

This reminds me of a time in college, when a preacher set up camp in our main courtyard on the fountain. Many students passed this, on their way to the cafeteria / student center / ATM machines / library / admin office / etc...so this was, to him, an ideal location. He tried just about everything to reach the students: fire-and-brimstone; having a woman play guitar and sing with him; quoting scripture (incorrectly, but he tried that too); you name it.

One day, while the pastor was holding forth in fire-and-brimstone mode, one of the school’s defensive linemen headed through, passing close to the fountain, pretty much ignoring the preacher. The guy wasn’t fat, but neither was he a lightweight or obviously musclebound. Trout suddenly pointed at the lineman and screamed, “Gluttony is a sin!! You’re going to hell!!!”

The football player pushed Trout into the fountain. The campus police told the lineman that he couldn’t do that to the preacher, who was only exercising his Constitutionally protected right to free speech and hadn’t actually touched him...but they really had to work to keep their faces straight.

In an additional irony, the pastor’s name...was Trout. Apparently he belonged in that fountain anyway.

Each day prepare your bread as you would barley cakes.  While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread.  For this is what the LORD says: Israel will eat defiled bread in the Gentile lands, where I will banish them!” Then I said, “O Sovereign LORD, must I be defiled by using human dung?  For I have never been defiled before. From the time I was a child until now I have never eaten any animal that died of sickness or that I found dead. And I have never eaten any of the animals that our laws forbid.” “All right,” the LORD said.  “You may bake your bread with cow dung instead of human dung.” (Ezekiel 4:12-15 NLT)

2Kings 18:27 “But Rab-shakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

Of course you could just EAT SHIT

2Kings 6:28,29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

Little cannibalism never hurt anybody.

Yes, service to God as a reason for being healthy IS silly, Thanks SS for understanding my angle. If one needs to justify sensible eating and exercise as a service to God or a thank-you to him, one is living a healthy lifestyle for the wrong reason.

For looking to God (through the Bible) for guidance concerning what to eat will only confuse you.

Take Romans 14 for example as Theocrat gave it, but the King James version instead:

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Then let’s look at 1st Timothy 4: 3-8

[quote}3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

7 But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

So it seems to me that in these instances God has no problem with the way one eats, as long as thanks is given for the food first.

Then he does have a problem:

Long list of things that can and cannot be eaten.

41 And every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten.

42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.

44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:

47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

It is a major endeavor to discern what this god wants eaten now and whether he might change his mind tomorrow.

But where does Huckabee get the notion that God despises a junk food eater? I feel that he is simply trying to glorify his life saving efforts by inferring that he is doing something Holy and for the greater good of man. And because he must change his eating habits in order to live, he’s determined that others should be made to change their eating habits too.

Yes eating sensibly and exercising is good advice, but not because failing to do so profanes a temple of God. Strive to be healthy because it allows you to exist with more abundant energy and ease. Health is it’s own reward, not a reward dependent on a god to sanctify it.

Living for another, any other, is never good advice. It can leave you feeling used.

If Benny Hinn can make cripples walk, can he make fat evangelicals jog?

Nunya your quote from 2 Kings is nothing God commanded, it’s something the people did because they were in the middle of a famine.

If gluttony is a sin then it follows that obesity is also a sin. The Greeks considered being out of shape a vice. I tend to agree with that assessment. There is an economic angle however. Cheap food is the least nutritious and produces many ill effects. I find it fantastic that industry makes billions selling compromised food to the masses then makes billions more selling the drugs used to treat the ailments those foods create! What a racket.

Brock,

Thanks SS for understanding my angle.

I try my best.

The goal is commendable but the motivation seems whacked. How is saying a God wants you to be thin and beautiful any different than a fashion industry saying you’re worthless unless you are correctly dressed, lean, fit and big-boobed? Are we soon going to see “Flat-Chest Anorexics for Christ� movements?

I think conflating “being healthy and not obese” with “being big-boobed and/or anorexic” is kind of goofy.

As to whether there is a moral component, I would say that if you take the view that God created (directly or indirectly) your body, and you as steward of it, treating it like crap is not much different from being wasteful and a poor steward of any other resource that God has given.

It’s not that the obese are necessarily sinners, but that to the extent they are not being wise stewards of what has been given them, they are not being respectful to the One who gave it to them.

(Omit long digression about “mortification of the flesh” as a path to virtue.)

Does Gov. Huckabee instead fear death and hold doubt in Divine judgment more than he will admit?  If Heaven exists, why is he delaying his chance to move there?

Certainly easy enough of a question to ask of anyone who professes to believe that the afterlife will be skittles and beer (or, perhaps, healthier food).  On the other hand, again, if one’s life is seen as a gift from God, to some purpose not immediately, perhaps, discernable, than to rush toward its end, or to hasten that end through neglect of it, does not seem a virtuous act.

Or, perhaps, he’s hypocritically cowardly in his fear of death.  No way to be sure what’s going on in his head.  An assumption one way or the other doesn’t seem warrented.

IMO, God doesn’t like stupid, whether it’s stupid self-righteous preachers or people who stupidly neglect their health.  (And, yes, there are people who are unhealthy or obese for reasons that are beyond their control, and that’s not sinful, IMO, any more than folks who are unconsciously self-righteous out of ignorance are sinful.)

I think this statement below is quite logically flawed. You seem to be treating the food and drug industry as one big company when it is difficult to even treat the food or drug industry individually as acting in concert to form a racket.

Rampart: “I find it fantastic that industry makes billions selling compromised food to the masses then makes billions more selling the drugs used to treat the ailments those foods create! What a racket.”

By this conspiracy type “industry” argument, one could just as easily argue that the ACLU and the religious right who want religion in government are actually working together in a racket.

Pop Tarts,

You mean they aren’t?  Why hasn’t anyone told me this?

everything is a business nowadays....

-education
-health care
-religion
-war
-sports
-food
-drugs
-entertainment
-environment

One has to be a genious to escape the great “rackets”

It seems that the definition of “living” can be resumed in this question: Have you given your money to somebody today?

***Dave, thanks for weighing in on this subject. I understand where you are coming from but basically disagree with your assumptions.

I think conflating “being healthy and not obese� with “being big-boobed and/or anorexic� is kind of goofy.

Goofy, I’ll admit, but thought provoking perhaps. I think the fashion analogy is valid. If you accept “the style characteristic of the social elite” you’re accepting that others have a right to design your perfect appearance. Believing that God has an image in mind for you, and striving to present it because He wants you to, is accepting the ultimate fashion dictates.

On the other hand, again, if one’s life is seen as a gift from God, to some purpose not immediately, perhaps, discernable, than to rush toward its end, or to hasten that end through neglect of it, does not seem a virtuous act.

If life is a gift, it must be freely given, and how you modify or use that gift must be without constraint. If you give a gift to someone but maintain the ownership decisions of that gift, it is not a gift at all but a liability to that person.

Instead of a partial list of animals known of by humans at the time, a responsible god would have given a complete list of foods and additives to avoid including trans fats, Olestra, aspartame, refined sugar, acrylamide, refined flour, pop, preservatives, and animal meats in general, to mention only a very few known No No’s. Being God, he would know what existed at the time as well as what humans would discover and add to their foods and diets in the future. But we barely heard a peep out of him and indirectly besides. Even Richard Simmons is better at instructing his acolytes than God. At least Richard gets on television and talks about diet and exercise.

(Omit long digression about “mortification of the flesh� as a path to virtue.)

Some of the holiest have used fasting as a method of communing with God. This can’t be healthy but He has been credited with encouraging its use. What’s THAT all about?

But I don’t believe a god should be instructing humans in how to be healthy in the first place. He’ll chuck the fit as quickly as the fat on Judgment Day. He’ll take the beautiful and throw them in a lake of fire. He’ll save the overweight and give them perfect bodies to wear instead. What’s the point of fashioning a healthy lean form if being in Heaven will give you one anyway?

(And, yes, there are people who are unhealthy or obese for reasons that are beyond their control, and that’s not sinful, IMO, any more than folks who are unconsciously self-righteous out of ignorance are sinful.)

How can one be “unconsciously self-righteous out of ignorance� when self-righteous means being certain of one’s own righteousness?

Do you agree that because he gave us all (supposedly) food stuffs and little direction on how to use them correctly, that he is being somewhat irresponsible?

Fasting is not unhealthy. Studies have shown that it helps your body in several areas. I know it does not sound logical but then again blood donation helps your body although it does not sound logical.

There is even a diet where you eat one meal a day. It is called the Des O’Connor diet if I am not wrong. Apparently Prince Charles adopts that diet.

Serge you stated “It seems that the definition of “livingâ€? can be resumed in this question: Have you given your money to somebody today?”

I think that is a wrong way to look at living. It should instead be:
Have you received your money from somebody today?

Goofy, I’ll admit, but thought provoking perhaps. I think the fashion analogy is valid. If you accept “the style characteristic of the social elite� you’re accepting that others have a right to design your perfect appearance. Believing that God has an image in mind for you, and striving to present it because He wants you to, is accepting the ultimate fashion dictates.

Then I posit that one can as easily conflate the “The car companies sas I need to have a huge SUV with tail fins and a wet bar” with “Consumers Union wants better roll-over tests on SUVs,” because both are claiming a “right” to design my perfect vehicle.

If life is a gift, it must be freely given, and how you modify or use that gift must be without constraint. If you give a gift to someone but maintain the ownership decisions of that gift, it is not a gift at all but a liability to that person.

If I give someone a Waterford crystal vase, it is theirs to do with as they please.  Of course, if they bang it around, fill it with paint, and generally mistreat it, I’m unlikely to give them another.

That said, this is also why folks in the Christian biz usually couch things as stewardship, not ownership.  But that is, perhaps, another discussion.

Instead of a partial list of animals known of by humans at the time, a responsible god would have given a complete list of foods and additives to avoid including trans fats, Olestra, aspartame, refined sugar, acrylamide, refined flour, pop, preservatives, and animal meats in general, to mention only a very few known No No’s.

I certainly plan on having a discussion with God about some rather inexplicable design and communication decisions made regarding humanity.

On the other hand, the above list assumes that revelation to humanity (such as it was) was complete and set in concrete some thousands of years ago.  That’s not something I accept (though there are those Christians who would).  And while God doesn’t explicitly warn against tsunamis or volocanoes in the Scripture, I suspect there are dangers we’re expected to figure out ourselves.

But I don’t believe a god should be instructing humans in how to be healthy in the first place. He’ll chuck the fit as quickly as the fat on Judgment Day. He’ll take the beautiful and throw them in a lake of fire. He’ll save the overweight and give them perfect bodies to wear instead. What’s the point of fashioning a healthy lean form if being in Heaven will give you one anyway?

Assuming that’s how it all ends ...

God doesn’t value health per se, I don’t believe.  God values acting in a responsible fashion, taking care of what one’s been given (in stewardship ), and setting similarly good examples for others.  I don’t think one has to have a hardbody and perfect looks to get into Heaveny (I certainly hope not), but if I neglect my health, eat at McD’s every day, and die prematurely of a heart attack, leaving my wife and daughter in financial hardship, I expect God will have a few words for me.

How can one be “unconsciously self-righteous out of ignorance� when self-righteous means being certain of one’s own righteousness?

I was giving a break to those who were certain of their righteousness but whose certainty was based on ignorance out of their control, vs. those who revel in their ignorance as being “Godliness” and don’t use the brains and inquisitiveness that God gave us.

Do you agree that because he gave us all (supposedly) food stuffs and little direction on how to use them correctly, that he is being somewhat irresponsible?

I don’t think being careful with pointed or sharp objects is specifically mentioned in Scripture, either.

I don’t think being careful with pointed or sharp objects is specifically mentioned in Scripture, either

What?  Are you trying to tell me that “don’t run with scissors” and “it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye” are not Biblical?

Go sell crazy somewhere else man, we’re full up here!

If you give a gift to someone but maintain the ownership decisions of that gift, it is not a gift at all but a liability to that person.

This statement is inaccurate.  If I give you a life estate to 1600 acres of farmland, but not outright title to that land, it is of value to you not a liability.  It only becomes a liability when you fail to utilize the gift.

Further, I support any means or motivation that will reduce the number of fattybombalatties on this earth, especially if they are flying coach in the seat next to mine.

Regards,

Consi,

That reminded me of the flight I was on last summer from San Diego to LA.  There was a rather robust lady beside me who kept insisting on raising the arm rest and getting a close to me as she possibly could.  It was disturbing.  I hate being touched by people I know (indeed, there’s only one person in the world whom I don’t mind physical contact from) let alone a perfect stranger....  Thanks for bringing back that flashback.  Bastard.

Hey consigliere thanks for pointing how WRONG the following statement is although your explanation is not entirely correct (unless you mean it in a very specific sense).

“If you give a gift to someone but maintain the ownership decisions of that gift, it is not a gift at all but a liability to that person”

Did not notice it initially, one reason is that I do not really see a problem with this topic, unless you mean it in a funny sense then yeah, I get it. The politician either A) Truly believes in divine intervention that helped him in his diet or B) Catering to his voters.

Now as for that statement of giving a gift but retaining title thereby creating a separation of legal ownership and beneficial ownership is what is called a trust. The gift scenario would represent your traditional family (Think Paris Hilton) type of trust, or a charity.

But the majority of trust is non-gratuitous and they are BIG business. You have you usual pension funds (about $3trillion in US) to your more specific Real Estate Investment Trust ($200 billion in US) which is generally a fund that invest in property and then sending back its profits (rent, etc) to the unitholders who have no control management investment decision, nor do they have the right to use any of the land but they do get the benefit of income earned.

There are many other uses such as using trust to reduce taxes one has to pay, reduce liability or rather place a wall between the doctor’s wealth and any potential negligence suits, etc, etc. Countries (small ones) have built a large part of their economy on trust business such as the Cayman islands with their star trusts. This is a place where you make BIG money or if you already have money, this is a place one can protect and maximise wealth.

Just take a look at this site for more info:
http://www.trusts-and-trustees.com/main.htm
If you are interested in finding out more that is.

Me:
If life is a gift, it must be freely given, and how you modify or use that gift must be without constraint. If you give a gift to someone but maintain the ownership decisions of that gift, it is not a gift at all but a liability to that person.

Consigliere:
If I give you a life estate to 1600 acres of farmland, but not outright title to that land, it is of value to you not a liability. It only becomes a liability when you fail to utilize the gift.

I guess the question, as it pertains to ultimate ownership, is: can I sell the land and buy new land? If it were a gift, I could and God’s intent be damned.

OK, now I have to pull a Ulfrekr and take you to the dictionary definition of liability:

li·a·bil·i·ty

1. The state of being liable.

2.
a.  Something for which one is liable; an obligation, responsibility, or debt.

3. Something that holds one back; a handicap.

Then look at gift:

1.  Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation.

2.  The act, right, or power of giving.

Oxford English Dictionary:

1.  A thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present.

Don’t make me post the definition of giving!

I can’t think of any way my statement was inexact, in the context it was given at least.

We tend to lose respect for other humans when we know they have only gifted in order to receive something back, yet we seem to admire it in a god.

Pop Tarts - What were you really trying to say?

Pop Tarts:
Fasting is not unhealthy. Studies have shown that it helps your body in several areas. I know it does not sound logical but then again blood donation helps your body although it does not sound logical.

You’re right because I didn’t qualify when fasting becomes dangerous. Fasting for forty days and forty nights, as Jesus supposedly did, would kill you. No more than five days is generally considered safe.

Caution: If you fast longer and end up seeing or talking to God, it’s probably time to eat something, and maybe see a shrink too.

There have been documented cases of people fasting for weeks on end.  I remember seeing a news broadcast about a Hindu being carefully watched at a hospital fasting.  They gave him only a few ounces of water a day to wash his mouth at with.  They weighed it after he spit it out to make sure all of it was there.  Fasting more than a week is not impossible.