General

I am not religious at all, but this is an interesting question. One thing to consider is that the Bible is, whether you believe it's contents or not, a product of it's time. The New Testament is from a period where agriculture probably wasn't far above subsistence level and many local economies based at least in part on slavery,which negatively effects their output. Gluttony is perhaps better understood as an 'excess in use' (I think the focus on food has been a mistaken one, and heard it argued that 'gluttonous' behaviour applies to any activity or resource used in excess eg. excessive smoking, alcoholism, pollution etc) as a counterpart to Greed's 'excess in desire/possession'. In this context it is easy to see the problem with 'overeating' in the period the Bible directly addresses - that is if one eats a lot, another almost by definition goes hungry.

The thing is that this isn't now the case. Those who are hungry are kept so more by problems in distribution rather than those of production*. There is more food produced than all the feedees/feeders in the world could get through. In that context, does 'gluttony' in that broader sense of overconsumption I mentioned earlier really mean anything when applied to food? Maybe you disagree, but I think it worth considering.

I have no idea how accurate a translation this is, but I did once come across a verse that did appeal:

Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy. Hearken diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in fatness.
Isaiah 55:1-3



*This isn't to say that improvements in production in hungry areas would not greatly help matters.

Very interesting question and great posts. All good stuff.

Don't know if this helps, but Jesus himself was apparently a glutton:

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.

(Matthew 11:19)

Yes, no doubt, but some of their statements may have been true, right? It's not solid evidence that Jesus was a glutton, but who knows?

I mean, if you wish to discard context and subvert biblical passages to suit your own twisted interpretations of them, I guess you might be somewhat right.

Or perhaps your theological credentials are as legitimate as your medical ones.

It looks like the topic creator/TheNiceGuy has deleted his account. I'll still leave the topic open though, it's one that could be quite useful to others.

I don't claim to have theological credentials; if that's your criterion for listening to my argument, please ignore what I have to say.

Honestly, I have grave doubts whether Jesus existed at all. But if he did, and the bible is correct:

Just because Jesus's enemies said something doesn't mean it's false. And it IS true that Jesus was a friend of publicans and sinners, right? Or sinners, at least. So perhaps they were telling the truth about the gluttony. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm not twisting any words or taking anything out of context.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts too, although Elanor has a much nicer way with words, a lot kinder then me too.

I thought so too, but apparently it's a hotly debated topic, e.g.: . I'm no expert, and am not going to weigh in on whether he existed or not; but I'd say the jury is out.

I have found this all so very interesting. I am an Episcopalian, and we know well the pleasures of food and feasting (at least in my church). I am starting a new related thread on all this: "Gluttony is no sin!"