to the people wondering about gluttony

There is a difference between
1) a preacher who every once in a while may stumble and ask for forgiveness (by which I mean a preacher who is human); and
2) a preacher who habitually engages in the same sinful activity on a daily or nealy daily basis, as evidenced by 100+ lbs. of excess food stored on his waistline.

I believe the Bible teaches the Christian life is characterized by growth away from sin, not by continuance in it. Yes, sin in general will always be a struggle, but it is a struggle characterized by deliverance, not by continuance.

In short I believe all Christians, including a pastor especially, should sin less and less as they become more and more mature in Christ. Am I saying a preacher who is obese due to excessive eating not a true Christian? No, not necessarily; but I am saying his faith (perhaps not his knowledge of Scripture, but his faith) is either marked by ignorance or by immaturity.

Now perhaps his obesity was caused by past gluttony, and he is now eating non-excessively as he should be; he just hasn't put forth the effort to actually lose the weight. In that case, that isn't a sin because the gluttony has stopped. We need to keep in mind that the excessive eating is the sin, not the obesity. Obesity is just the result (except in the case of rare genetic disorders). It takes hard work to lose weight, and if that isn't number 1 on his priority list (to lose the effects of his past sin), then I can't blame him. In that case though, he should be losing weight little by little over time or at least not getting larger.

 

Amen, brother, amen. :godisgood:

 

To say that to sit at a meal and eat until you are satisfied is an act of gluttony is not gluttony in the Biblical sense and very nit picky at best.
What you need to do is change your argument to that of slothfulness and you and I will be in agreement, totally. Pastors are notorious for not getting enough exercise. This is the source of their heaviness not gluttony.

 

But what if satisfaction is not reached until an excess of food has been eaten and obesity has resulted.

I agree with your statement, in general, but do not see that it holds in all cases.

There is a good rule followed by some called the 80% rule. Eat until you are 80% full and stop. It is a healthy way to live.:tonofbricks:

 

Your statement here if full of wisdom, and I give you thanks for it.

Like I have stated in past posts, I have had to use a lot of wisdom and self will to refrain from eating too much sense September of '07 when I had surgery on my left foot and just yesterday on my right one. All physical activity has come to a halt as I have to be on my back with my feet raised above my heart to decrease any swelling. Even 80% will add pounds to me.

My foot condition is the result of gout sense the age of 19. Like one person has already posted above gout is not the result of gluttony. In my case it is the result of the breakdown of proteins. These proteins are found mostly in meats but I am so sensitive to it that flair ups are common even though I eat vegetables.

 

It could still be worked off. Obesity is from inactivity.

 

That is true. The more activity the more calories burned. The only way to loose weight is to take in less calories than are burned.:type:

 

Apology to all concerned!

While I am no fan of Sen. Barack Obama, I humbly here apologize to the entire Baptist Board for my attempt to vocalize a 'belch' in that manner, without thinking through the implications, and further, I humbly ask the Administrators and/or Moderators to please delete that portion of my response from my post, and also the same quoted part in post #81. I am also going to do the "report post" bit, myself.

Thanks, again to all.

Sincerely,

Ed

 

Can more activity be a sin?

 

Ed,
You can't be serious! That was a very funny post.

 

No one has said eating until you are satisfied is gluttony. We've said exactly what the dictionary says... eating "excessively" is gluttony. That means eating more then necessary. It means eating more then your body needs, such that the excess is stored as large amounts of fat.

Lack of exercise leads to low caloric needs; it doesn't lead to obesity. It just makes your body need less food. In other words, it makes "gluttony" easier to accomplish. There are plenty of people who exercise very little yet do not become obese, because they eat only as much as they need (which is very little if you never exercise). That isn't healthy, because your muscles need activity to remain strong. But the point is, obesity is caused by eating more then your body requires, or in other words, gluttony. Gluttony is necessary to become obese (save for rare genetic disorders).

 

I'm sorry jsn, I just can't see it that way. If I am going to hell for believing different than you in regards to gluttony or it's English definition then I am glad that you are not my judge.
I have beat this horse past dead now and I am going to let it go. Don't eat too much for supper now. You just might be sinning. By your definition.

Blessings

 

I don't think any one has mentioned hell as a punishment for refusing to believe gluttony is a sin, or for refusing to accept the English definition of the word gluttony used in English Translations of the Bible. After all, no one has perfect theology.

I won't eat excessive amounts of food tonight, I try to make it a habit not to sin. Thanks!

 

Proverbs 23:1-3 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.

In light of Proverbs 23:1-3, the food of another will deceive one who is given to appetite. The one who is deceived is not wise.

Sheds new light on the wine too. We should not be desirous of it because of its deceiving qualities.

Look thou not...

 

Good points, it seems the lack of self-control evidenced by excessive appetite can cause other problems besides obesity.

I agree with your comments especially if you mean "addicted to" or "lusting after" by 'desirous' of wine. I say that, because the command not to gaze upon wine in proverbs 23 should not be taken as a warning to not partake in it at all.

Similarly the advice in Job 31 to not look upon a young woman doesn't mean to literally never let a woman into your line of vision, but rather not to lust. Scripture sometimes must be interpreted using other Scriptures when it can have multiple meanings, and the meaning of Job is made obvious by other verses on the topic of lust.

Just as food can be used properly or abused, so can wine. This is especially true considering the praises the scriptures have for wine when used properly, and the fact that our Lord partook in the cup and claimed to enjoy fermented wine as we've discussed earlier in the thread.

To the extent that is what you mean by "desirous", I totally agree.

 

Where does Jesus himself say he drank alcoholic beverage as you claim?

 

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, John 1:13. . . 15, says ". . . give him the name John . . . (15) for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. With that in mind, note that in Matthew 11:18 Jesus says, "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking..." [and is nonetheless accused also, this time of being one who drinks alcohol to excess and eats to excess]. The point made is that no one could do right in the eyes of the Pharisees... whether or not one drank fermented drink didn't matter, they were going to find a way to accuse the person either way.

He said He drank that which John abstained from, which is "wine and other fermented drink". Yes, the pharisees accused Him of being a drunkard, but I'm not saying He was a drunkard (He certainly was not). Christ said the reason was accused by them, however, is because *He drank that which John abstained from*.

Christ's words seem awfully plain. He could not have been much more clear. They didn't know what ethyl alcohol was back then. They just called it wine and other fermented drink. He drank that which John abstained from, which is defined by the Word as "wine and other fermented drink". Sometimes I wonder what people who think it is a sin to have a glass of wine would need Him to say to actually believe Him. "John came abstaining from ethyl alcohol, but the Son of Man came drinking it."?? Even then I'm sure they'd find away around His words so they could hold on to their traditional beliefs about alcohol.

This is a case of whether or not we are willing to believe Christ even when his words seem to go against our cherished baptist traditions. The pharisees certainly were not willing to believe him when he challenged their Jewish traditions. Will we?