Question for discussion

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2003
Question for discussion
3
Sat, 05-08-2004 - 3:22pm
I was making this for Kristina, but I'd LOVE to hear other thoughts.

First of all, Kristina I owe you an email! I JUST finished with school (Well, this semester anyway) yesterday. I'm looking forward to catching up on e-mail, among other things.

Second, I've been wanting to ask you something, and your post below on the Faith and Recovery section reminded me of it. You said something like, "Every church I've ever been to has served coffee and donuts, and there's nothing healthy about that."

You've said similar things before, about Christians who eat too many carbs and you just can't understand it. Or that food is "nutrition only, nothing else."

Personally, I think your view is too rigid. In fact, I find it almost Darwinian. God made things, food included, for a lot more than mechanical purposes. The marvellous thing about human beings is that we have such a unique place among all creatures. We are created to aim for happiness, which is not the same thing as pleasure. But, a happy and virtuous life will include pleasure. If we were animals, it would make sense to minimize the importance of food.

Food means a lot more, culturally, than nutrition. And I don't think that's a bad thing. It is part of how we show love, how we celebrate, how we learn, how we experience new places and cultures, mark the seasons, and so on. And (!!!) think of the Holy Eucharist (Lord's Supper)! As a Catholic, my world is *filled* with physical signs of an inward grace. At the Last Supper Christ gave us HIS Body-- how?! Through food! If that doesn't blow your mind... it should certainly give something to the other side of the "food is nutrition only" argument.

Now, in this modern age, food is screwed up BECAUSE so many other things are screwed up. It is intricately linked with our culture's take on sexuality. If you look at JPII's Theology of the Body, the problem is not that we overvalue sex (or food), but that we UNDERvalue it. When we fail to see the incredible power, design and purpose of the human body, we stop caring what we do not only with and to our bodies, but also to our souls. This leads to disorders of all kinds. When you realize how precious and significant the body is, you are more inclined to be healthy. Health is moderation. Carelessness and gorging are vices, but rigidity is another. When you stop enjoying food and letting it have the proper significance, it's hard to be well.

So, any thoughts? Arguments?

Starfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 05-08-2004 - 10:23pm

Hey Starfish,


Good to 'hear' from you. I am glad you finished this semester and hope you will enjoy a well deserved break.


I like your comments and agree to some extent. To say that food is nourishment only IS very rigid. Let me expand on that a little bit - and maybe I should have done so sooner. I personally believe that the main purpose of food is to nourish the body and give us fuel for energy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy what we are eating.


You're right, I probably am too rigid.


I'm with you on all of that except the part where you said

Love & hugs, Kristina

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2003
Thu, 05-13-2004 - 12:46am
Hi again!

Thanks for your response, Kristina. I can see a little better where you are coming from. However, I must respond to some things.

To argue that we were created for God's happiness is no minor point. This is theologically unsound and un-hopeful on several levels. To begin with, the creation of mankind was an act of pure love, not for an end. Every human act has an end or several ends-- we go to school *so that* we can be educated, get jobs, learn how to do things, etc.; we brush our teeth *in order to* avoid dental problems, and so on. But God does not act for an end, because he is perfect in himself. To say that God created FOR his own happiness is to imply that God himself is either a selfish being or an imperfect one (who *needs* something).

But we humans always act for some end, and the ultimate and perfect end of a human life is happiness. People disagree on the nature of happiness, but the Christian believes that it rests in God and God alone. Aquinas is excellent for an explanation of this. He goes through common definitions of happiness (wealth, pleasure, health, etc.) and this a link to an excerpt from his *Summa Theologica*: http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FS/FS002.html

You point out that we are called to bring glory and honor to God in all that we do, citing 1 Corinthians 10:31. However, this is not because God "needs" for us to glorify and honor Him or because He needs for us to effect His Happiness. Rather, it is simply at the core of our nature-- we were created to worship and praise, and in this consists *our* Happiness. God may delight in our actions, but be careful to distinguish this from happiness. Perfect happiness is God, and God is happy in-Himself.

Now, I also question your reference to 1 Corinthians 10:31 because I think you've taken it out of context. The preceding passages are a discussion of Christian freedom and responsibility. Consider this footnote from the American Council of Bishops:

" A summary of specific situations in which the eating of meat sacrificed to idols could present problems of conscience. Three cases are considered. In the first (the marketplace, 1 Cor 10:25-26) and the second (at table, 1 Cor 10:27), there is no need to be concerned with whether food has passed through a pagan sacrifice or not, for the principle of 1 Cor 8:4-6 still stands, and the whole creation belongs to the one God. But in the third case (1 Cor 10:28), the situation changes if someone present explicitly raises the question of the sacrificial origin of the food; eating in such circumstances may be subject to various interpretations, some of which could be harmful to individuals. Paul is at pains to insist that the enlightened Christian conscience need not change its judgment about the neutrality, even the goodness, of the food in itself (1 Cor 10:29-30); yet the total situation is altered to the extent that others are potentially endangered, and this calls for a different response, for the sake of others."

This is not a passage about choosing the right foods for your own health, but about living a good and pure Christian life. Christ is always talking about banquets, feasts, harvests, abundance—and it is always rich and joyful. Never “come fuel up, but don’t touch those bagels” but “come to the table of plenty.” Does that mean I think our cultural take on food and eating is healthy? Of course not. But I don’t think donuts are the culprit.

Health is necessarily a part of happiness, but the goal of happiness comes first. For Aristotle, the working definition of happiness is “virtuous activity;” meaning doing virtuous acts with the right intentions and in the right way. Not a formula, but a sketch. Aquinas most fully develops happiness in the Christian sense. In any event, what I keep wondering is: Has the goal of “health” become more important than the aim of happiness? How would things be different if we focused on the human person rather than bodies, bodies, bodies?

Thanks for your good response. Sorry this reply is such a monster.

Love,

Starfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 05-14-2004 - 6:25am

Hey Starfish!


Great arguments and I see the point you are making. However, I think this is one of those times when we need to agree to disagree. The way I see it this is a matter of different opinions and beliefs and we could probably go on forever with arguments. Your thoughts?

Love & hugs, Kristina


The opinions I have expressed here are from my own experience and are not intended as medical advice or to take the place of your own physician's advice.

Love & hugs, Kristina