eating nutritionless food

[dairygirl4u2c]

*declared by the pope for catholics, that is*

I assume it could be, as it could just be something that has been overlooked.

Isn't eating food/candy that provides no calories and no nutrition separating the good taste aspect of food from the nutritional aspect and thus going against the natural law? Furthermore, abuse of said food/candy could lead to addiction..

This thread should have these focuses: one explaining whether or not it is immoral and two on discussing whether or not it's possible to have it and/or something overlooked in general be declared immoral.

Edited April 25, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Jaime]

Wait...

are you saying there is food with "nutritional value"?



Get real!! I swear, what will you wacky protestants come up with next??


Nutritional food... sheesh.

[Carrie]

Food with no calories?

Tell me what they are...I need to diet.

[jezic]

umm why ask?

[philothea]

I have wondered about this.

I think it's not presently a big deal, because there isn't any viable calorie-free food. When eaten in any significant quantity, all non-digestible things mess up your bowels big time.

However, if it was perfected, and skinny people started having massive gluttonous parties, it would be condemned. Like bulimia already is, IIRC.

[desertwoman]

Off topic, but that sig is a tad offensive dairygurl.

[-I---Love]

I don't believe unhealthy eating is immoral by definition, however I do believe that is not caring for ones body that God created perfect, and continues to live in us, and as there will be some sort of bodily resurrection, and we are to treat our bodies as temples, not caring for our body w/ proper nutrients is sinful as it harms us and often causes unnecessary diseases/cancers/health probs in general/mental illnesses.

[Socrates]

I think people are missing the point of this.
Dairy's just trying to mock the Church's teaching on contraception.

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 25 2005, 07:26 PM'] I think people are missing the point of this.
Dairy's just trying to mock the Church's teaching on contraception. [/quote]
I was aware of that.

It's still an interesting (to me, at least) issue.

[Dreamweaver]

I'd also like to add that Dairygirl's sig is a bit improper, if not offensive.

[Socrates]

It should be noted that gluttony (eating and drinking beyond the needs of the body) is one of the seven deadly sins.

[theculturewarrior]

God told Peter to eat what he had assumed was unclean. And Paul said all things are clean to him.

God also said "Be fruitful and multiply."

[Carnanc]

I believe that this is a pretty important issue. The question I have is how do you know when you are being glutonous? I really don't know what would be the proper ammount of food strictly following nutritional guidelines.

[Socrates]

It's a judgment call. Follow your conscience and common sense. If you eat or drink to the point of making yourself sick, this is a clear indication of gluttony.

Edited April 26, 2005 by Socrates

[Carnanc]

yes. though some foods could make you feel sick in normal quantities.

[philothea]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Apr 26 2005, 03:28 PM'] I believe that this is a pretty important issue. The question I have is how do you know when you are being glutonous? I really don't know what would be the proper ammount of food strictly following nutritional guidelines. [/quote]
Me and my scruples have been all over this issue, many, many times! (Argh!)

The ideal seems to be what saints all seem to exemplify: food is a tool to serve God, and what you eat should not matter to you at all. Feasting, fasting, good stuff, icky stuff, it doesn't matter -- like St. Bernard who drank a glass of oil instead of wine and didn't even notice it.

However, not being a saint (grr) I get hungry and I want yummy stuff. I also have a lot of weird dietary concerns. And I obsess. It gets complicated.

I want to eat only healthy things in moderate quantities, and ideally to eat "poorer" food when I have the choice rather than luxurious stuff. In practice I sometimes go overboard. I tried LOTS of fasting, but that seemed to just make me more food obsessed than ever. I have finally concluded that what I eat is not really that big a deal, so long as I don't commit any sins against charity, get attached to any particular food or preparation, or make myself ill.

I'm sure this wasn't helpful at all, sorry. Just babbling.

[argent_paladin]

1. The Church has, as mentioned before, declared that gluttony, the unreasonable desire for food, is a sin. It is important to note that it is not the type or amount of food that is sinful, but the desire that is against reason that is sinful. One could then argue that food with no nutritional value is against reason. It is funny because this week we have been discussing temperance in my virtue class. We even asked if it was ok to eat a snickers bar for breakfast. There doesn't seem to be any food that is intrinsically immoral to eat, that is for any reason and in any circumstance. See Thomas's treatment here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/314804.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/314804.htm[/url]

2. dairygurl is asking this question because she wants to dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception. Since the Church says that it is a sin to engage in sex purely for pleasure, why doesn't the Church condemn eating purely for pleasure? Especially artifical means, like Nutrasweet, Olestra, etc.

I want other people to contribute and so I will will save my reply for later. Plus, I am tired.

[MichaelFilo]

Here is the problem with the "nutrionless" food arguement:
No food is devoid of nutrition. Even eating wood will nourish you (albiet, it is not recommended, and highly worth the risk of eating wood). A candy bar does give you calories, and you need said calories to function. Of course, there are better sources for calories, candy bars still provide them.

Simply stated, your nutrional health is not a case of moral vs immorality. The food you consume is not to be judged as more or immoral because of it's iron and vitamin A content. It will be judged as to WHY you consume the food. Is it purely for pleasure, or a desire for food? Is it because you want to use a gift from God in the most effecient way possible without abusing it?

The point: Why you consume what you do is what matters, not just simply what you consume.

God bless,
Mikey

[philothea]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Apr 27 2005, 03:43 AM'] Here is the problem with the "nutrionless" food arguement:
No food is devoid of nutrition. Even eating wood will nourish you (albiet, it is not recommended, and highly worth the risk of eating wood). [/quote]
Olean (olestra), Splenda (sucralose), and Nutraasweet (aspartame) have made the possibility of nutritionless food real. It's only possible with high-tech manufacturing, of course.

I think there weill be truly zero-calorie foods not too far in the future.

Then would there be a moral issue, do you think?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='philothea' date='Apr 28 2005, 12:47 PM'] Olean (olestra), Splenda (sucralose), and Nutraasweet (aspartame) have made the possibility of nutritionless food real. It's only possible with high-tech manufacturing, of course.

I think there weill be truly zero-calorie foods not too far in the future.

Then would there be a moral issue, do you think? [/quote]
yes, eating food with no nutrition is the same as using contraceptives.......you are distorting the true intention of food.