Is Being Over-Weight A Sin?

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I'm not sure if it's a sin but imv it's a bad witness. How can you talk to others about turning away from sin etc when you can't even turn away from a cupcake? How can you encourage others to walk with God, when you refuse to walk up the stairs?

Good post.

In my opinion being overweight, in itself, is not a sin. For one, the term overweight covers a broad range of body types and figures. I've known people classified as overweight who were in incredible shape. Some people's bodies naturally hold a bit extra weight even when they are in excellent physical health. Romans, 20 lbs overweight, if you are in good physical health and shape, is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, as people age, they will gain a marginal amount of weight and this is completely natural and to be expected. Just because someone gains a few pounds here or there over the ideal body weight it doesn't mean they are lazy, gluttonous, or out of shape.

That being said, being morbidly obese is not at all healthy and in my opinion is poor stewardship of one's body. We as Christians should strive to take care of our bodies because we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The United States has a huge obesity epidemic and obesity continues to be one of the most easily preventable causes of chronic disease out there (other preventable causes include smoking and drinking). I believe Christians are called to exhibit self control and to take care of our bodies.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Reply by Smoochface
Is being overweight a sin? No. Is the gluttonous behavior that may lead to being overweight a sin? Obviously.

Whew!!
I am glad that you posted that Smoochface because if I was a Catholic I would have to go to confession every day. However, I am a protestant and I do not like to sin and if overweight is a sin then I would have to take my mirrors down at my house.

I for one was not offended by the word “Titanic’ because I am more in the line of a Hindenburg





[QUOTE]
Reply by Smoochface
All the rest is just rhetoric about how gross/unhealthy/unappealing/whatever fat people are, and has nothing to do with sin.
[/quote]
Another good statement Smoochface! I am just a fat dude that now has to worry about my other sins and not my questionable fat sin.

How about this. I can use my fat to sustain me in case the recession gets worse and I do not have money for food. You know like the bears do, they store up fat so that they can sustain themselves in the winter. Just talking about the bears makes me want to eat salmon!!

I know that being overweight can be a serious issue and I think that weight is a factor in how some people view you. Some people think that you have to have your weight under control to be an affective Christian witness.

I am just trying to add a little humor to this serious subject so that we do not take it so serious that we look down on ourselves or others.

Stan Hindenburg

 

[snoochface]

Some people think that you have to have your weight under control to be an affective Christian witness.

I saw people saying that in this thread as well. I could not disagree more. One of the most effective witnesses and preacher of God's word that I have ever encountered had a problem with his weight. Jesus knew ALL of our temptations, he understands ALL of our human frailties and issues, and I don't think anyone has to present themselves as appearing to be perfect on the outside in order to be a good witness. That's like saying that if someone has bad teeth, they can't be a good witness because how can they promote brushing away sin when they can't even brush away plaque?

This is the problem with so many people putting on their "church face" and trying to act like they don't have sinful issues on the inside. As long as they present the right appearance on the outside, they are supposed to be taken as better witnesses. Personally, I'd much rather hear from someone who obviously struggles, as we all do, and I would count their testimony as more authentic than someone who just puts on the right look.

 

[Conservativation]

The question accounts for all the exceptions you can mention. Its even been disclaimed about hormonal and thyroid and all that, lets assume we have accounted for any cause outside the control of the person....because otherwise the question is avoided.

Working too much is also not an excuse, diet AND exercise. Cant exercise.....eat less, or different foods. If you take in less than you burn, you lose weight.

If you eat junk and too much food, and you are slovenly, you sin.

That it may hurt someones feeling is no worse than saying on any forum something about any sin behavior. Its sad this one is so protected.

 

[snoochface]

If you eat junk and too much food, and you are slovenly, you sin.

No. If you are slovenly, you sin. If you eat junk, you are not sinning. Eating junk is not sinful. If you eat too much food (too much being subjective - athletes eat "too much" food before they compete to carb up, people celebrating a holiday often eat "too much" food, insert ad naseum examples here) you are not sinning. If you are a glutton, you sin.

 

[Niffer]

No. If you are slovenly, you sin. If you eat junk, you are not sinning. Eating junk is not sinful. If you eat too much food (too much being subjective - athletes eat "too much" food before they compete to carb up, people celebrating a holiday often eat "too much" food, insert ad naseum examples here) you are not sinning. If you are a glutton, you sin.

So then, what is the definition of "too much."?
If "eating too much" isn't a sin, but gluttony is, where is the line?
I thought the line was when your actions show consequences, like becoming drunk from drinking too much, getting lung cancer from smoking, or becoming obese from eating too much.

But you're arguing this isn't the case.
So, how do you define "too much"?

-Niff

 

[Niffer]

The question accounts for all the exceptions you can mention. Its even been disclaimed about hormonal and thyroid and all that, lets assume we have accounted for any cause outside the control of the person....because otherwise the question is avoided.

Working too much is also not an excuse, diet AND exercise. Cant exercise.....eat less, or different foods. If you take in less than you burn, you lose weight.

If you eat junk and too much food, and you are slovenly, you sin.

That it may hurt someones feeling is no worse than saying on any forum something about any sin behavior. Its sad this one is so protected.

I understand this isn't a PC question, many people suffer from being over-weight so this question hits close to home for many, however I think that we should be able to be open about this topic, and not worried about stepping on people's toes...If we all started doing that, the only thing we'd ever talk about is the weather.
I'm doing my absolute best to keep this respectful and appropriate, and I really hope no one is taking this personally, as it certainly isn't meant to be.

Peace,
- Niffer

 

[snoochface]

So then, what is the definition of "too much."?
If "eating too much" isn't a sin, but gluttony is, where is the line?
I thought the line was when your actions show consequences, like becoming drunk from drinking too much, getting lung cancer from smoking, or becoming obese from eating too much.

But you're arguing this isn't the case.
So, how do you define "too much"?

-Niff

My issue was with the blanket statement that if you eat junk and eat too much, you are sinning. That's not the case. Plenty of high-metabolism, 100 lb people eat junk, and they aren't sinning.

My definition, for whatever that is worth, of eating too much would be when food becomes a greed, when it becomes something you almost want to hoard or obsess on because you covet it so much. Gluttony, in my understanding, is a condition of the heart, not a physical thing.

Someone who is 200 lbs will eat more than someone who is 100 lbs, but at that weight they may be eating enough to satisfy their appetite, which is increased because the size of their stomach is bigger and takes more to fill. That amount of food that they eat more than the 100 lb person does not mean they are eating like a glutton; they are eating to satisfaction, and it takes more to satisfy them.

Are they eating "too much"? Perhaps, if they ate less, they would lose weight, be healthier, more fit, but I don't think that eating as they are would constitute the sin of gluttony.

ETA: Because I anticipate the question, someone doesn't get to 200 lbs in the first place through gluttonous behavior, necessarily. Eating an extra 200 calories a day, over time, will get you to put on weight, without being a glutton.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

So then, what is the definition of "too much."?
If "eating too much" isn't a sin, but gluttony is, where is the line?
I thought the line was when your actions show consequences, like becoming drunk from drinking too much, getting lung cancer from smoking, or becoming obese from eating too much.

But you're arguing this isn't the case.
So, how do you define "too much"?

-Niff

I would say "too much" would be beyond what a person's body needs. Now sometimes during holidays and/or other celebrations, people will eat "too much" during that day, but over all their food intake should even out. Eating "too much" food will cause a person to continually gain weight to a point where the weight will severely impact their health and lifespan. Obesity related chronic diseases are some of the most preventable and among the most common diseases in the United States.

A person should eat enough to keep his or herself at a healthy, steady weight. Large weight fluctuations are unhealthy. A person should exercise regularly and eat enough of a well balanced diet to maintain a healthy weight in order to be the best steward of the body that God has given them.

For more information about Chronic Disease, of which most are easily preventable, see here.

 

[Autumnleaf]

About having to be thin to be an ideal witness... Lol. I was talking to a former pastor the other day and I picked his brain. When I asked him about what the most important quality a pastor can have he said a pastor should be young and attractive. He said if a pastor is young and attractive he will go far. The guy I was talking to is old and has a few extra pounds.

 

[Conservativation]

No. If you are slovenly, you sin. If you eat junk, you are not sinning. Eating junk is not sinful. If you eat too much food (too much being subjective - athletes eat "too much" food before they compete to carb up, people celebrating a holiday often eat "too much" food, insert ad naseum examples here) you are not sinning. If you are a glutton, you sin.

Please reread my post and note the word AND connecting the two, hence saying what you said

 

[Conservativation]

My issue was with the blanket statement that if you eat junk and eat too much, you are sinning. That's not the case. Plenty of high-metabolism, 100 lb people eat junk, and they aren't sinning.

My definition, for whatever that is worth, of eating too much would be when food becomes a greed, when it becomes something you almost want to hoard or obsess on because you covet it so much. Gluttony, in my understanding, is a condition of the heart, not a physical thing.

Someone who is 200 lbs will eat more than someone who is 100 lbs, but at that weight they may be eating enough to satisfy their appetite, which is increased because the size of their stomach is bigger and takes more to fill. That amount of food that they eat more than the 100 lb person does not mean they are eating like a glutton; they are eating to satisfaction, and it takes more to satisfy them.

Are they eating "too much"? Perhaps, if they ate less, they would lose weight, be healthier, more fit, but I don't think that eating as they are would constitute the sin of gluttony.

ETA: Because I anticipate the question, someone doesn't get to 200 lbs in the first place through gluttonous behavior, necessarily. Eating an extra 200 calories a day, over time, will get you to put on weight, without being a glutton.

Hence the word AND meaning in the way I intended it BOTH conditions are present and related.

I didnt make the statement you are taking exception to. I eat lots of junk food as well. So this neednt be a controversy in this thread.

Niffer I agree that it should be able to be discussed.

 

[hijklmnop]

...

 

[JaneFW]

Now, back to the question:
Is being overweight a sin?
Is it a form of gluttony? Or lack of self control? Can it be considered being a bad steward of your own body?

Blind post

Gluttony is definitely a sin.

But, define obese. Society's 'rules' for body shape/size have changed hugely over time. Everyone I'm sure has heard that, these days, Marilyn Monroe would be considered to be overweight, and would be a size 14 in today's clothes. No doubt a doctor somewhere would be advising her to lose weight, and yet she is many men's ideal woman even to this day.

However, in the sixties, skinny got in, and has never gotten back out - even though these days Twiggy is quite a normal sized woman. One has only to look at the fashion world and how scarily skinny some of those women are. I find that obsession with scrawny to be a dangerous one, and far too hard for most girls to live up to.

Interestingly, it seems that there is less pressure for men to live up to some kind of physical ideal - and in fact I most often see comments on this form generally about obese women, as if men somehow magically remain thin. Has anyone here seen The Biggest Loser? They have had men who are 500lbs. There are plenty of obese men too in this country, and in this state - yikes, we do not have good statistics for health/weight.

I don't consider obesity to be a sin. What I consider to be a sin is any behavior in which the believer takes his/her eyes off God, and makes something else their god - such as alcohol, nicotine, drugs or food. Actually, there are a lot of other false gods in our society, but let's keep it at those four.

One of the reasons that I do not consider obesity per se to be a sin is that, again, the sin imo is with the focus being on food. BUT, both bulimics and anorexics are also obsessed with food. A bulimic will be normal weight (from what I understand) and of course an anorexic will be below weight - but they are still damaging the "temple", and their focus is not on eating with thanksgiving and gratitude, but on a twisted obsession with either eating in a gluttonous manner and then expelling the food, or eating as little as possible and rejecting food.

So, my bottom line is that "weight" is not the sin. The wrongful focus is the sin.

 

[Luther073082]

Blind Post: Being overweight CAN be the symptom of a sin, but not the sin itself.

However its hard to say because as one gets older, their metabolism decreases and weight gets put on.

I eat like half of what I ate when I was a teenager (like 16, 17) and I was like 160 pounds at that age. Now that I'm 29, I'm like 210.

 

[JaneFW]

Blind Post: Being overweight CAN be the symptom of a sin, but not the sin itself.

However its hard to say because as one gets older, their metabolism decreases and weight gets put on.

I eat like half of what I ate when I was a teenager (like 16, 17) and I was like 160 pounds at that age. Now that I'm 29, I'm like 210.

Oh wait until you are late 40's!

I think it was Romans who said that what is easy in the the teens and 20's becomes more difficult over time. I used to lose weight at the drop of a hat. I also used to control my weight much better when I could run. However, genetic OA is making fast inroads into a number of my joints - both knees, one hip, one shoulder, cervical spine, and both big toes - and this makes exercise so much harder. I can no longer run, and have been told that quite firmly by the orthopedics specialist. I have bone on bone on one of my knees. Yes, we walk, we bike, and I have a home gym which is really fantastic, but it's a harder process to maintain a good weight, especially when there is often pain with exercise. Also, in the 40's, life is actually busier (for me) than it was 20 years ago. And yet, at the same time, more sedentary! When I was in my 20's, I walked everywhere - I mean, to work, at lunchtime, during my work day, back home, to friends/family houses .. I just walked. I carried my groceries home on the bus. At weekends I hiked during the day and danced the night away. That's not my lifestyle any more. It is a typical American, middle class, middle age, middle management lifestyle. I drive to my boss's parking spot only 2 minutes from the building. I sit at my desk all day long, with someone to gofer, and everything available by email. My printer is right by my desk. It's easier sometimes to sit in the office and do school work at my computer and eat my lunch than get up and move. In the evening, I drive home and right away I sit back down at my laptop and get back to my school work. Get up to eat dinner. Then sit back down to finish schoolwork. Then I wonder why I am stiff!!

That's why I have to make a concerted effort. I get up at 5am to work out! It's the only time that I have spare and it's not always easy to get up BUT I am privileged that we put that money aside, and left our cars on the drive, so that we could have a home gym. Also, we happen to live in a city where we suffer no really cold weather, so I don't have to worry about freezing in the garage while I work out. These are huge advantages. The trails we have in this city are another fantastic advantage. I couldn't imagine trying to walk outdoors without having this benefit.

Not everyone has these advantages/benefits and not everyone can afford a gym membership. People do not always live in neighborhoods that are safe to walk in. Many do not have the knowledge about cooking healthy foods. Many more do not have the money to buy good food. After all, you can buy a burger for 1 dollar at McDonalds, and what does 1 dollar buy at the grocery store? One apple?

I just don't think it's that easy.

 

[Luther073082]

Jane, thats a big part of the problem.

In the United States its cheaper to eat food that is bad for you. You pay a premium for healthy foods, thats just the way it is.

Then on top of that, there arn't a lot of healthy foods out there that don't take significant prepartion.

 

[Conservativation]

The question cannot be avoided with this equivocating about whats obese.

Its like what is ______________, fill in the blank. And, like the courts said when that was asked about obscenity, you know it when you see it.

Id say that if you look at someone and have to ask, "are they obese", probably thats not who we are talking about.

Its much simpler to address the topic as its presented. Yea, being obese via unhealthy choices is sin, and lets assume for each of us that we are talking about people who everyone would agree IS obese, because thats the question that was asked, it doesnt ask, is it sin to be at a weight that it depends on your body type that yea maybe you maight be obese or maybe not or maybe you have hormones or thyroid or some other disease, that seems like avoiding the issue unnecessarily. If the OP was about a specific person, yea...get defensive, but what is the point of being defensive over hypothetical people, isnt it easier to assume the OP means that you should first assume we are talking about someone that you think is obese, THEN, having made that assumption, answer the question.

I dont know maybe its just me, seems painfully overcomplicated the way its going, when its really a simple, and not offensive question. No one here is being accused of obesity, or sinning. No one ANYWHERE is, its a conceptual hypothetical question.

 

[Sailor_A]

I think some of us are just trying to clarify that it is the action of "gluttony" that is the sin.
Being overweight may be a result but then it may not be. Others who are gluttonous may not share those results. As a silly example stealing is a sin. Having 10 million pounds worth of goods may be the result but that result is not a sin.

Because it is conceptual I think people have been thinking hard to really explore the concept. Don't assume all of us are defensive or take it personally. I've learnt quite a bit. I always see gluttony in terms of food but a poster pointed out it could be overindulging in anything.

 

[Conservativation]

I think some of us are just trying to clarify that it is the action of "gluttony" that is the sin.
Being overweight may be a result but then it may not be. Others who are gluttonous may not share those results. As a silly example stealing is a sin. Having 10 million pounds worth of goods may be the result but that result is not a sin.

Because it is conceptual I think people have been thinking hard to really explore the concept. Don't assume all of us are defensive or take it personally. I've learnt quite a bit. I always see gluttony in terms of food but a poster pointed out it could be overindulging in anything.

True, and I didnt assume everyone was doing what I said. I see about half, maybe a bit more doing it, equivocating on what is obesity. It happens every time that comes up as a topic, even down to suggesting it will be hurtful if someone sees the thread, and we dont really worry about that with other sins, because we are not accusing anyone here or anywhere of anything.

I know you are very analytical, and I had no notion you were failing to see the point as presented so please don't be offended by my admonition. Its not at you, and its truly just to try and get the conversation to be about the topic and not obfuscation.

Even on gluttony, it would be my opinion that to answer the OP would be to say yes or no, you either do or do not think gluttony is a sin....THEN go on to say however gluttony can be subjective, so its identifiable as sin if its pretty much painfully obvious but most importantly the individual knows where their heart is when they indulge.

I maintain that if someone is already obese (to the degree all would agree), has no disease causing it, and is eating a stone of pizza and twinkies by the day, yep, they are sinning.