“We should pursue the ideal of good cooking and good food the same way—free from guilt, free from snobbery, free from lies about cooties in the food” (Food Catholic, p. 20).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Theology That Bites Back
Theology That Bites Back
Do we, or does our Creator define “food”?
The Creator does/did:
Then, have a Coke!
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Really, at what point then, do all the processes and ingredients of today’s processed or fast foods become ‘non-foods’? Is eating them disobedience, or is it ambiguous?
Does it nourish the body? Does it taste good? And most importantly, can you thank God for it? If the answers to these questions are all “yes,” then I don’t see where “processed” or “fast food” could be disobedient.
That makes sense to me. Some additional considerations: Does it nourish the body? Hmmm. If by “nourish” we mean “provides calories so we don’t starve”, I guess any food does that. By other definitions of “nourish”, possibly not so much. Does it taste good? It does that. It can ruin our appetite for anything that might do us more good, and therein lies the problem. Can you thank God for it? If you’re thankful you can, though you might want to consider what it is you’re thankful for. Is it thankful for “our daily bread”/actual needs met, or is it… Read more »
Certainly there are ways to sin with food, but the level of processing and the notion of fast food don’t really have anything to do with it. If someone is prone to carnal overindulgence, they can do so just as much with honey glazed chicken, a salad, and made-from-scratch pie as with Big Macs and soft serve ice cream.
I agree with your overall point, but I note that some American restaurant menus seem to inherently involve carnal overindulgence. I think we are more prone to it some settings than in others simply because of what is available and/or put before us. The best way to know if I’m eating wrong is to look at what I can see it is doing to me. Too much, or wrong food, might not be the same for everybody. Now, what about church potlucks? :) Is eating big always wrong?
I’ll agree that setting and context matters, as do the individual people involved. And as to eating big, if it is always wrong, then God sure did an odd thing when he instituted all those feasts for Israel. :)
So, does a Coke qualify as food under God’s definition? What about a spoonful of white sugar crystals?
They can be, if consumed in the right spirit. Why wouldn’t they?
By ‘right spirit’ you mean in obedience, or enjoyment?
Someone might enjoy too much whiskey…is that the right spirit?
To have ‘too much’ of anything is wrong by definition.
Whiskey is totally one of the right spirits though.
Katecho quotes Genesis: “Every moving thing that is alive…”
My question would be: What is ‘alive’ about a Coke?
“…as I gave the green plant.” Coca plants, kola trees, and corn would all qualify even if we take this at its most legalistic. You could possibly make an argument against mushrooms, but Coke is in the clear.
More to the point, I don’t think that passage is meant to be understood in the forensic manner that you’re using here. I think that when God said that to Noah’s family, He was simply giving animals as food to a humanity which had previously been permitted only plants. And I believe that “plants and animals” ought to be understood broadly.
Well, there is no coca or kola plants in Coke anymore; it’s all artificial. But there is lots of fructose that comes from altering corn plants.
And I agree that we don’t want to be legalistic about the wording, but on the same hand, just how far can we go away from simple foods and still have good health? Maybe there is no limit – I don’t know…
“Artificial” in the sense that it’s a blend of flavorings to replicate a taste, I suppose. It’s still derived from plants. But let me challenge the whole paradigm here. Why assume that simplicity is necessarily better than complexity when it comes to food? I don’t think you can make the case from scripture. That Genesis quote says not to eat meat with the life (blood) in it, which under most circumstances means cooked. Cooked meat is more complex, more “processed” than raw meat. Israel was given the feast of unleavened bread. Specifically calling out unleavened for that feast implies that… Read more »
I agree about simple/complex. God is glorified in His complexity. I meant simple in terms of His command.
And I agree about processing… chewing is processing, too!
The real question is, who do we rely on for our provider? Does our sustenance come from our abilities to re-manufacture nature, or does it come more directly? Is it because we are so smart that we can avoid nature, or are we reliant upon nature for life?
I’m not trying to draw a dichotomy, I am trying to find where to draw the line.
Our provider is ultimately neither our abilities, nor the natural world, though both of those are used as means. Our provider, ultimately, is God. And if I give glory to God for my box of Kraft Mac & Cheese, wherein lies the problem?
It would be disobedient if it failed Katecho’s definition above.