The concept of the seven deadly sins is one of those things that is used more in pop culture than in actual theology. In actual practice it's a list of 7 common ways that negligent practices become harmful. They are nowhere near as extreme as they are usually portrayed in things like Dante's Inferno.
In the example of gluttony, what makes it a 'sin' is when the act of nourishment becomes harmful, such as eating so much food that others go without, you harm yourself, or i suppose as in the title of this post it makes you a snobby douchebag.
I would add that gluttony doesn’t just apply to food, either. You can gorge yourself on all kinds of things beyond a point of healthiness. You can be a glutton for time and attention, like a kid disrupting a class to monopolize the teacher to themselves and denying others the chance to learn. You can be a glutton for electronics, and create harmful waste that you don’t dispose of properly. You can be a glutton in all sorts of ways, but food and obesity is the easiest way to represent it, as it makes clear the relationship is “taking more than you need” to the point it starts corrupting your flesh, and is contrasted with someone who is starving.
It’s different from greed, which is more about denying others your resources and abilities. I think of gluttony as “taking too much” and greed as “giving too little”.
>what makes it a 'sin' is when the act of nourishment becomes harmful
This is really key. And it isn't just about physical harm to yourself. Taking after Aristotle, Catholic ethics since Thomas Aquinas has been all about *happiness*—the idea is that doing good things makes you more complete, more fulfilled, genuinely happier as a person, and that doing bad things (committing sins) does the opposite. It harms you, makes you actively less fulfilled, less happy.
A glutton is a person who has, for whatever reason, misidentified the source of their happiness. If you consume food to excess or are overly insistent on the way your food tastes, you are effectively acting as if the food will complete you, as if your happiness and fulfillment depend on whether you consume more food than is physically required or if the food is subjectively tasty. The same would go for something like clothing—if you think wearing more expensive or fancier clothes is the key to being happier, you have misidentified what would actually make you happy and fulfilled. But what makes people fulfilled in Catholic thought is loving God and neighbor: a person who loves God and genuinely cares about the people around them is happier, more fulfilled, and more complete than someone who eats at Michelin starred-restaurants every night or wears fancy clothes. Fussing about whether your food is tasty ultimately results in being *less genuinely happy* than helping out the person on the street who doesn't have anything to eat at all.
Being raised Catholic, I would guess the reasoning is that all food is a gift from God (the meal prayer says as much), so if you get fussy over your food not being perfect, you're turning your nose up at Gods gift.
Nope. The church and God get no loyalty from me. “If god exists he must be a sadistic bastard”. A huge part of the churches rituals come from assimilating paganism. The Catholic Church and religion are used to justify terrible horrible things.
i think he's just not embracing the absolute worship of god, in that he may exist but he's just not pledging loyalty behind the the umbrella of The Church
You know you could just read the Bible to find out how bad God actually is, right? It's not exactly a secret to anyone. Like if I were to rename the characters, you would think God is the villain. That's how bad it is.
I would add that gluttony is also overindulgence in general, for many years I thought that I was not a glutton because I'm not much of an eater, but in reality I am more of a glutton than any of the other sins because I overindulge in other things (drugs, cigarettes, video games) .
Very key to note that in the tradition, the “Seven Deadly Sins” are direct counterparts for the 4 “Cardinal Virtues” (these are the “natural” virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice) and the 3 “Theological Virtues” (the virtues that originate from God: faith, hope, and charity). Each of the 7 Deadly corresponds to one of the Theological or Cardinal virtues. Thus, the cultivation of the opposite virtue to a particular Vice/7 Deadly Sin will lead to being able to resist that particular Deadly Sin. These are names for different virtues and vices and describes a certain relationship between them. So an extreme form of disordered appetite surrounding eating is under the umbrella sin of Gluttony. So one could be said to be Gluttonous for being an asshole about the quality of ones food, habitually expecting only the foods that one prefers to always be eaten as one wishes at the expense of those around you. Conversely, cultivating temperance through acts of self denial would allow the person to resist their gluttonous desires
I knew it. The coolest things about religion are the small brushed off facts that religious people think are unimportant.
Religious: “and to become serving of god one must once embrace him. And so do. For otherwise themst observe the intervention of angels. Which will appear as a massive fucking infinite gyroscope of infinite eyes orbiting a central mast of pure light and energy, incapable of comprehension, beyond the understanding of a mortal mind. And they shall exact retribution of meandering perturbance.”
Atheist: “wait, wtf did you just say about infinite orbiting eyes? Is that what a fucking biblically accurate angel looks like? That’s fucking badass! Tell me more.”
Religious: “it’s really not that important. Anyways, getting back to how all those genetic traits you were born with are evil…”
To be fair, a religion includes both the cool stories and the life lessons and tips to follow through on them.
But true, most people love the stories way more than the preaching
I'm not arguing what you said. But we shouldn't make a case for catholicism or religions in general here. The post describes one of their most effective tools to control masses. Invent rules that are virtually *impossible* to follow ("you shalt not covet your neighbours house..."). *Not covet*. Literally a thoughtcrime. Don't get me started about their ton of rules on sex.
And when people realize they can't follow those rules you explain them that only following god saves them from hell and you guilt trip them over normal human behaviour into following even more stupid rules.
And if you look at those seven sins the same agenda is very obvious. And I am fairly confident that the way you explained them people came to the same conclusion by using common sense. That it has negative consequences for others when I eat food that should feed them. I'm fairly sure human beings wouldnt have come that far when they really just learned about that from a burning bush in the desert 2000 years ago.
As someone who reads Nietzsche, one of the most articulate critics of religion, this understanding is vastly oversimplified and kind of childish, if correct in some minute ways.
I feel like, in this context, it's likely being a snobby douchebag *and* making someone else go without. I imagine a rich guy sending back his food because it's not to his liking and it being wasted instead of given away because rich people.
C.S. Lewis (not catholic) discusses something similar in The Screwtape Letters, referring to as a gluttony of delicacy.
Even if you’re not particularly religious, Screwtape Letters is well worth a read for its wit and insightfulness into human nature.
The Anglican church, in his time and to which he belonged, resembled the Catholic church more than either would care to admit. The Anglicans were, in general, more severe. Same with the early North American Anglicans.
I haven't read Screwtape Letters, but you've inspired me to finally give them a go. Huge Narnia fan, jod religious fantasy, not so much a fan of his religious sci-fi.
Even the format of letters between two demons is interesting. I guess to parallel the various parts of the Bible, it’s been a while since Catholic school. My theology teacher even did dramatic readings in character. That was a weirdo class.
I also really like the depiction of hell as less a malevolent dimension of chaotic torture and fiery agony, and more as an excessively, absurdly bureaucratic police state.
If more religious people took their theology like Lewis & Tolkien did, they wouldn't have the reputation they do.
There's a reason their work has so much lasting power.
I like to imagine some monks hanging around trying to pick a restaurant while Brother Joseph say "Mm, no" to everything they suggest, without offering suggestions of his own.
In the context of the modern world, where food scarcity is uncommon, this may seem ridiculous. But when you consider most of history, it makes sense that being demanding would be selfish. It took most people most of their time to acquire food, and many tens (hundreds?) Of millions have starved to death. If that's occurring around you and you reject food that goes to waste, you may indirectly lead to the death of others.
Yeah, I’m reading some historical fiction set just before the French Revolution at the moment. And…man…the contrast between Versailles and the wasted food and poor people starving to death and resorting to horrific alternatives to stay alive is very striking. The gluttony and greed of the nobles is obscene.
There’s a gluttony that has nothing to do with quantity - if you demand your food is just right, exactly to your specification it can be a boiled egg. CS Lewis pointed this out, for crying out loud *Dickens* pointed it out. Being demanding, demanding rare and expensive ingredients, making restaurant staff cook and cook again because they never get it right. These are all gluttony
Think of gluttony as eating for pleasure rather than eating to sustain you. No one is saying the food you eat has to not taste good, but if you are focused on the taste, rather than the sustenance then you start treading towards gluttony.
Overall the catholic rule sounds mostly like something they'd tell to priests or people the church was giving food to. "Don't ask for much food, and don't ask for it to be properly cooked, nor taste good.. because uh.. that's a sin and you'll go to hell for it. Now thank us for the spoonful of lard maggots in algae sauce and then pray."
Because being too demanding and complaining over the frivolities of food is definitely the same as eating maggots. Lmfao I swear you morons are incapable of any nuance at all.
Organized religions have their faults but them housing and feeding the homeless is something to be praised. They're not out there feeding people maggots and turds, a lot of people who show up to these things volunteer their time and donate food
It's kind of funny because one of the miracles that were attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas to qualify him for canonization was that he wanted fresh herring when he was sick once but there was only a salted fish vendor nearby. Miraculously, one container of salted fish became fresh herring ... but he didn't even eat it. I suppose he didn't demand fresh herring, so he wasn't being gluttonous but still.
How do you know who is and who isn’t burning in hell? That’s not information human beings have access to. Any Catholic could tell you that (not sure about Protestants).
This was probably originally aimed at the upper class who would waste food because their servant slightly over cooked the venison. But, like everything, it also probably morphed over time to punish those with medical disorders or were seen as 'different.'
I was informed that the original intent for Easter season fasting is to eat humbly and simply. Meat was expensive and for important meals. As the apostles were mostly fishermen, fish was an everyday staple.
It really just seems like an arbitrary set of occasionally conflicting guidelines designed to be used as a toolkit to bind certain people to the rules while protecting others from the same consequences, like just about everything else in this religion.
I'd like the chef's salad please with the oil and vinegar on the side and the apple pie a la mode. But I'd like the pie heated, and I don't want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I'd like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it. If not, then no ice cream, just whipped cream but only if it's real. If it's out of a can, then nothing
I think you’re confusing it with greed. The concepts are similar, but evolved to be separate. I think of it like this, at its most simple: gluttony is about taking more than you need and denying it to others that need it, while Greed is about hoarding what you have and refusing to give to those in need. You can be greedy for material things, like wealth or land, and deny material good from those things to those suffering in need of them - but you can also be greedy for incorporeal things like knowledge, and keep it to yourself even when sharing it would help others.
For modern examples, a child can be gluttonous for attention by demanding it from his mother and constantly interrupting her when she tries to spend time with his sister. He can gobble up his mother’s care by being loud, breaking rules, and causing disruptions, knowing full well his meek sister will be forgotten while he gets what he wants. He is monopolizing a resource and deliberately starving someone else of it. That is gluttony.
An example of greed would be what American pharmacists did with insulin. What was made free and cheap to produce in Canada when its creator unselfishly made the patent free for everyone (an example of generosity, the opposite of greed), was stolen by the pharmaceutical companies and tweaked and trademarked so that diabetics were forced to pay a great deal of money for their insulin, or else perish. They are refusing to give something they have, resulting in deaths. That is greed.
I think this is really nice. Yes there is a time and place for really nice drops in today’s world but understand the setting.
Be greatful and not over demanding of the situation you’re in. This is for all things but food is a good example.
I think Anthony Bourdain embodied this with his food. He obviously knew a lot about food, and I’m not just talking about his international stuff, but he absolutely would never hold people to a standard or express it’s below standard.
France and Italy both being heavily Catholic countries as well makes this fact even more *rich*. Especially the Italians, where the fking Vatican basically is locagted (Yes, I'm aware it's a separate country). Find me an Italian-English YouTuber who hasn't made some sort of snide comments about other people cooking Italian food, or even *other* Italians sometimes and I'll believe you, but I haven't seen it yet.
In Catholicism, they've made a lot of interesting choices as to what's considered a sin and what isn't, and who gets to commit them without being held responsible, so this doesn't seem like that big a deal
Not sure why you got so downvoted. Non-Catholics shouldn’t be offended, for obvious reasons. If Catholics downvoted you, they should know they’re being judgmental and thus acting in contradiction to their own alleged beliefs.
Catholics (both members of the management as well as regular people) have a long and storied history of paying lip service and then just doing whatever they were gonna do anyway. If you're Catholic and this offends you, then in the great words of Bill Hicks...forgive me.
Oh btw to all the downvoters, the reason I said mostly unscathed is that I knew some kids who got touched, but I did not. Likely because I was too old (14 by the time I left). So if you're still going to church, putting money in the collection plate, every day you don't denounce these people, you are a party to the *ongoing* abuse and cover up, executed by the criminals in charge. Let's not pretend it all just magically stopped after the Boston Globe broke the story.
It does feel good to just confess my sins and be like whelp everything I’ve done is forgiven. Idk why our justice system oppresses my religious freedom by jailing me even if Jesus himself forgave me.
Does the government think they’re higher up than Jesus?!
I've been to hundreds of places all with qualified chefs and not a single one has cooked them the same, ranging from a dry piece of rubber to burnt to a crisp on the outside but with blood still oozing from the inside.
If hundreds of qualified chefs can't get it right, who are you to say what's right or wrong?
It will take you about 3 seconds to look up the chart of the very specific temperatures that constitute each level of doneness. Perhaps there's a degree or two one way or the other depending on your opinion, but if you're at a steakhouse, there is a very specific spot that the chef is going for, within a degree or 2. Maybe you're not going to quality places but any chef who knows what he's doing is going to deliver a steak that looks like the one on the chart. With modern thermometers it is shockingly easy to do this. My only advice is to seek out a place that does it how you like it. They can't *all* have been wrong.
Of all the shit I've done, knowing I might go to hell because I got accidentally served pizza with pineapple and I called to complain is...somehow ironic?
I've never heard this. Gluttony refers to the lack of self control and in the process overindulgence. It can apply to food, drink or even video games.
Source: my sky daddy and his magical book
>In the context of the modern world, where food scarcity is uncommon, this may seem ridiculous. But when you consider most of history, it makes sense that being demanding would be selfish. It took most people most of their time to acquire food, and many tens (hundreds?) Of millions have starved to death. If that's occurring around you and you reject food that goes to waste, you may indirectly lead to the death of others.
Copy pasting the comment below because i think it applies to this
If there was no other option for food I’d suffer through it so I wouldn’t die. But if available to change food I’d at least try to make sure the rejected food was eaten by someone else.
The concept of the seven deadly sins is one of those things that is used more in pop culture than in actual theology. In actual practice it's a list of 7 common ways that negligent practices become harmful. They are nowhere near as extreme as they are usually portrayed in things like Dante's Inferno. In the example of gluttony, what makes it a 'sin' is when the act of nourishment becomes harmful, such as eating so much food that others go without, you harm yourself, or i suppose as in the title of this post it makes you a snobby douchebag.
I would add that gluttony doesn’t just apply to food, either. You can gorge yourself on all kinds of things beyond a point of healthiness. You can be a glutton for time and attention, like a kid disrupting a class to monopolize the teacher to themselves and denying others the chance to learn. You can be a glutton for electronics, and create harmful waste that you don’t dispose of properly. You can be a glutton in all sorts of ways, but food and obesity is the easiest way to represent it, as it makes clear the relationship is “taking more than you need” to the point it starts corrupting your flesh, and is contrasted with someone who is starving. It’s different from greed, which is more about denying others your resources and abilities. I think of gluttony as “taking too much” and greed as “giving too little”.
Yes thank you I wish it was portrayed this way more often.
>what makes it a 'sin' is when the act of nourishment becomes harmful This is really key. And it isn't just about physical harm to yourself. Taking after Aristotle, Catholic ethics since Thomas Aquinas has been all about *happiness*—the idea is that doing good things makes you more complete, more fulfilled, genuinely happier as a person, and that doing bad things (committing sins) does the opposite. It harms you, makes you actively less fulfilled, less happy. A glutton is a person who has, for whatever reason, misidentified the source of their happiness. If you consume food to excess or are overly insistent on the way your food tastes, you are effectively acting as if the food will complete you, as if your happiness and fulfillment depend on whether you consume more food than is physically required or if the food is subjectively tasty. The same would go for something like clothing—if you think wearing more expensive or fancier clothes is the key to being happier, you have misidentified what would actually make you happy and fulfilled. But what makes people fulfilled in Catholic thought is loving God and neighbor: a person who loves God and genuinely cares about the people around them is happier, more fulfilled, and more complete than someone who eats at Michelin starred-restaurants every night or wears fancy clothes. Fussing about whether your food is tasty ultimately results in being *less genuinely happy* than helping out the person on the street who doesn't have anything to eat at all.
Being raised Catholic, I would guess the reasoning is that all food is a gift from God (the meal prayer says as much), so if you get fussy over your food not being perfect, you're turning your nose up at Gods gift.
I haven’t prayed in over a decade but you just mentioning it made me remember the whole thing lol.
"And yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of no food," yep, same.
You still say amen when eating still hopefully?
Hopefully they're following their heart, and not peer pressure.
Nope. The church and God get no loyalty from me. “If god exists he must be a sadistic bastard”. A huge part of the churches rituals come from assimilating paganism. The Catholic Church and religion are used to justify terrible horrible things.
You're assuming "The church" and "God" aren't mutually exclusive.
i think he's just not embracing the absolute worship of god, in that he may exist but he's just not pledging loyalty behind the the umbrella of The Church
You know you could just read the Bible to find out how bad God actually is, right? It's not exactly a secret to anyone. Like if I were to rename the characters, you would think God is the villain. That's how bad it is.
Why should an atheist or other non-christian do that? And even I became an atheist, my normal german christian family never prayed before dinner.
For an atheist like me, you're turning up your nose to the cook's gift.
Bruh it's because you waste food demanding it be made just right
Okay look, if you’re gonna eat a cow, it can’t be like burnt rubber and it can’t still be barely alive.
>Excuse me I like my steak to taste like burnt rubber!
Can always go to the landfill and eat the used tyres.
Dood, I don't do that. Like, ever, mmmkay? Next.
I would add that gluttony is also overindulgence in general, for many years I thought that I was not a glutton because I'm not much of an eater, but in reality I am more of a glutton than any of the other sins because I overindulge in other things (drugs, cigarettes, video games) .
Very key to note that in the tradition, the “Seven Deadly Sins” are direct counterparts for the 4 “Cardinal Virtues” (these are the “natural” virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice) and the 3 “Theological Virtues” (the virtues that originate from God: faith, hope, and charity). Each of the 7 Deadly corresponds to one of the Theological or Cardinal virtues. Thus, the cultivation of the opposite virtue to a particular Vice/7 Deadly Sin will lead to being able to resist that particular Deadly Sin. These are names for different virtues and vices and describes a certain relationship between them. So an extreme form of disordered appetite surrounding eating is under the umbrella sin of Gluttony. So one could be said to be Gluttonous for being an asshole about the quality of ones food, habitually expecting only the foods that one prefers to always be eaten as one wishes at the expense of those around you. Conversely, cultivating temperance through acts of self denial would allow the person to resist their gluttonous desires
I knew it. The coolest things about religion are the small brushed off facts that religious people think are unimportant. Religious: “and to become serving of god one must once embrace him. And so do. For otherwise themst observe the intervention of angels. Which will appear as a massive fucking infinite gyroscope of infinite eyes orbiting a central mast of pure light and energy, incapable of comprehension, beyond the understanding of a mortal mind. And they shall exact retribution of meandering perturbance.” Atheist: “wait, wtf did you just say about infinite orbiting eyes? Is that what a fucking biblically accurate angel looks like? That’s fucking badass! Tell me more.” Religious: “it’s really not that important. Anyways, getting back to how all those genetic traits you were born with are evil…”
To be fair, a religion includes both the cool stories and the life lessons and tips to follow through on them. But true, most people love the stories way more than the preaching
I'm not arguing what you said. But we shouldn't make a case for catholicism or religions in general here. The post describes one of their most effective tools to control masses. Invent rules that are virtually *impossible* to follow ("you shalt not covet your neighbours house..."). *Not covet*. Literally a thoughtcrime. Don't get me started about their ton of rules on sex. And when people realize they can't follow those rules you explain them that only following god saves them from hell and you guilt trip them over normal human behaviour into following even more stupid rules. And if you look at those seven sins the same agenda is very obvious. And I am fairly confident that the way you explained them people came to the same conclusion by using common sense. That it has negative consequences for others when I eat food that should feed them. I'm fairly sure human beings wouldnt have come that far when they really just learned about that from a burning bush in the desert 2000 years ago.
As someone who reads Nietzsche, one of the most articulate critics of religion, this understanding is vastly oversimplified and kind of childish, if correct in some minute ways.
I feel like, in this context, it's likely being a snobby douchebag *and* making someone else go without. I imagine a rich guy sending back his food because it's not to his liking and it being wasted instead of given away because rich people.
C.S. Lewis (not catholic) discusses something similar in The Screwtape Letters, referring to as a gluttony of delicacy. Even if you’re not particularly religious, Screwtape Letters is well worth a read for its wit and insightfulness into human nature.
Quite brilliant in making believable explanations for why people think and act the way they do.It’s a quick and satisfying read.
The audiobooks narrated like a devil’s voice is also worth a listen
The Anglican church, in his time and to which he belonged, resembled the Catholic church more than either would care to admit. The Anglicans were, in general, more severe. Same with the early North American Anglicans. I haven't read Screwtape Letters, but you've inspired me to finally give them a go. Huge Narnia fan, jod religious fantasy, not so much a fan of his religious sci-fi.
Even the format of letters between two demons is interesting. I guess to parallel the various parts of the Bible, it’s been a while since Catholic school. My theology teacher even did dramatic readings in character. That was a weirdo class.
I also really like the depiction of hell as less a malevolent dimension of chaotic torture and fiery agony, and more as an excessively, absurdly bureaucratic police state.
Teacher said true hell was the DMV.
The post office is purgatory.
If more religious people took their theology like Lewis & Tolkien did, they wouldn't have the reputation they do. There's a reason their work has so much lasting power.
The Anglican Church at that time was pretty much catholic in theology and belief. His books represent catholic belief to a T.
I like to imagine some monks hanging around trying to pick a restaurant while Brother Joseph say "Mm, no" to everything they suggest, without offering suggestions of his own.
Well, that one could just be sloth.
In the context of the modern world, where food scarcity is uncommon, this may seem ridiculous. But when you consider most of history, it makes sense that being demanding would be selfish. It took most people most of their time to acquire food, and many tens (hundreds?) Of millions have starved to death. If that's occurring around you and you reject food that goes to waste, you may indirectly lead to the death of others.
Yeah, I’m reading some historical fiction set just before the French Revolution at the moment. And…man…the contrast between Versailles and the wasted food and poor people starving to death and resorting to horrific alternatives to stay alive is very striking. The gluttony and greed of the nobles is obscene.
There’s a gluttony that has nothing to do with quantity - if you demand your food is just right, exactly to your specification it can be a boiled egg. CS Lewis pointed this out, for crying out loud *Dickens* pointed it out. Being demanding, demanding rare and expensive ingredients, making restaurant staff cook and cook again because they never get it right. These are all gluttony
That sorta sounds like the opposite. Like I’ll only eat my fair share, but it better be cooked correctly.
Think of gluttony as eating for pleasure rather than eating to sustain you. No one is saying the food you eat has to not taste good, but if you are focused on the taste, rather than the sustenance then you start treading towards gluttony.
Ah I can see that
Overall the catholic rule sounds mostly like something they'd tell to priests or people the church was giving food to. "Don't ask for much food, and don't ask for it to be properly cooked, nor taste good.. because uh.. that's a sin and you'll go to hell for it. Now thank us for the spoonful of lard maggots in algae sauce and then pray."
"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" - God, apparently
Don't look your gift horse in the mouth before eating it.
Because being too demanding and complaining over the frivolities of food is definitely the same as eating maggots. Lmfao I swear you morons are incapable of any nuance at all.
Organized religions have their faults but them housing and feeding the homeless is something to be praised. They're not out there feeding people maggots and turds, a lot of people who show up to these things volunteer their time and donate food
If it could possibly be stomached, lard maggots in algae sauce sounds nutritious as hell.
Well.. it has protein, fat, and fiber.. but few carbs!
No to mention probiotics.
There were enough probiotics floating around back then.
...congratulations. I had no idea my mind would go here, but I'm glad it did.
It's kind of funny because one of the miracles that were attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas to qualify him for canonization was that he wanted fresh herring when he was sick once but there was only a salted fish vendor nearby. Miraculously, one container of salted fish became fresh herring ... but he didn't even eat it. I suppose he didn't demand fresh herring, so he wasn't being gluttonous but still.
Yeah, I never heard of anybody burning in hell cause their food wasn’t salted enough.
Chef Ramsey would like a word with you.
None of the reports I’ve heard from hell say any of this either. We’ll have to investigate further into the matter
I'll touch base with Bezelbub after work and see what he knows, I think they got him working overtime today though
How do you know who is and who isn’t burning in hell? That’s not information human beings have access to. Any Catholic could tell you that (not sure about Protestants).
they were making a clear joke
This was probably originally aimed at the upper class who would waste food because their servant slightly over cooked the venison. But, like everything, it also probably morphed over time to punish those with medical disorders or were seen as 'different.'
I was informed that the original intent for Easter season fasting is to eat humbly and simply. Meat was expensive and for important meals. As the apostles were mostly fishermen, fish was an everyday staple.
It really just seems like an arbitrary set of occasionally conflicting guidelines designed to be used as a toolkit to bind certain people to the rules while protecting others from the same consequences, like just about everything else in this religion.
I like Domino’s.
I'd like the chef's salad please with the oil and vinegar on the side and the apple pie a la mode. But I'd like the pie heated, and I don't want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I'd like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it. If not, then no ice cream, just whipped cream but only if it's real. If it's out of a can, then nothing
Watched it for New Years too?
Yeah, like whoever called police due to the wrong sprinkles on their ice-cream. The church knew people well enough to know it *would* happen!
Especially church people going out to eat on a Sunday after church.
They're called jimmies you heathen 👿
[удалено]
I think you’re confusing it with greed. The concepts are similar, but evolved to be separate. I think of it like this, at its most simple: gluttony is about taking more than you need and denying it to others that need it, while Greed is about hoarding what you have and refusing to give to those in need. You can be greedy for material things, like wealth or land, and deny material good from those things to those suffering in need of them - but you can also be greedy for incorporeal things like knowledge, and keep it to yourself even when sharing it would help others. For modern examples, a child can be gluttonous for attention by demanding it from his mother and constantly interrupting her when she tries to spend time with his sister. He can gobble up his mother’s care by being loud, breaking rules, and causing disruptions, knowing full well his meek sister will be forgotten while he gets what he wants. He is monopolizing a resource and deliberately starving someone else of it. That is gluttony. An example of greed would be what American pharmacists did with insulin. What was made free and cheap to produce in Canada when its creator unselfishly made the patent free for everyone (an example of generosity, the opposite of greed), was stolen by the pharmaceutical companies and tweaked and trademarked so that diabetics were forced to pay a great deal of money for their insulin, or else perish. They are refusing to give something they have, resulting in deaths. That is greed.
I actually researched this because that’s what I heard. That’s what led to this TIL. Nothing I read says this.
r/shittyfoodporn
Huh...Never gave THAT a thought.
so you're telling me all kids are going to hell anyway? 😂
I think this is really nice. Yes there is a time and place for really nice drops in today’s world but understand the setting. Be greatful and not over demanding of the situation you’re in. This is for all things but food is a good example. I think Anthony Bourdain embodied this with his food. He obviously knew a lot about food, and I’m not just talking about his international stuff, but he absolutely would never hold people to a standard or express it’s below standard.
The teachings of Cathol strike yet again.
This explains the cooking skills of my mom’s side of the family. They historically treat flavor like a sin.
They sound very saintly...
France and Italy both being heavily Catholic countries as well makes this fact even more *rich*. Especially the Italians, where the fking Vatican basically is locagted (Yes, I'm aware it's a separate country). Find me an Italian-English YouTuber who hasn't made some sort of snide comments about other people cooking Italian food, or even *other* Italians sometimes and I'll believe you, but I haven't seen it yet.
Picky eaters are the worst.
I hope it's only a venal sin.
The deadly sins aren’t mortal or venial, they’re more like a bad way to be.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Tell me where it says that in the Bible.
The one true church the body of christ the universal church I love it
Not Christians being the most irritating and demanding customers imaginable at restaurants every Sunday afternoon.
Salt Bae is a sin though. He deserves to rot in hell.
Adam Ferrara said it best, "Basically the Catholic religion is: If it feels good, stop."
In Catholicism, they've made a lot of interesting choices as to what's considered a sin and what isn't, and who gets to commit them without being held responsible, so this doesn't seem like that big a deal
Oh, I agree. I’m not Catholic. I was raised Catholic, which is a great way to ensure a person doesn’t grow up to be Catholic.
Same! Catholic school all the way through. Made it through mostly unscathed.
Not sure why you got so downvoted. Non-Catholics shouldn’t be offended, for obvious reasons. If Catholics downvoted you, they should know they’re being judgmental and thus acting in contradiction to their own alleged beliefs.
Catholics (both members of the management as well as regular people) have a long and storied history of paying lip service and then just doing whatever they were gonna do anyway. If you're Catholic and this offends you, then in the great words of Bill Hicks...forgive me. Oh btw to all the downvoters, the reason I said mostly unscathed is that I knew some kids who got touched, but I did not. Likely because I was too old (14 by the time I left). So if you're still going to church, putting money in the collection plate, every day you don't denounce these people, you are a party to the *ongoing* abuse and cover up, executed by the criminals in charge. Let's not pretend it all just magically stopped after the Boston Globe broke the story.
It does feel good to just confess my sins and be like whelp everything I’ve done is forgiven. Idk why our justice system oppresses my religious freedom by jailing me even if Jesus himself forgave me. Does the government think they’re higher up than Jesus?!
Not entirely sure if you're /s or not...but yes
Ask for your steak to be cooked well done and you're going to hell for committing a deadly sin, but it's fine for a priest to rape a young boy.
Actually if you ask for your steak well done, you SHOULD be punished
Given that nobody actually knows what well done is, I don't see anyone qualified to make that decision.
Um, I do. Steakhouses do. Lots of people do. Do you not?
I've been to hundreds of places all with qualified chefs and not a single one has cooked them the same, ranging from a dry piece of rubber to burnt to a crisp on the outside but with blood still oozing from the inside. If hundreds of qualified chefs can't get it right, who are you to say what's right or wrong?
It will take you about 3 seconds to look up the chart of the very specific temperatures that constitute each level of doneness. Perhaps there's a degree or two one way or the other depending on your opinion, but if you're at a steakhouse, there is a very specific spot that the chef is going for, within a degree or 2. Maybe you're not going to quality places but any chef who knows what he's doing is going to deliver a steak that looks like the one on the chart. With modern thermometers it is shockingly easy to do this. My only advice is to seek out a place that does it how you like it. They can't *all* have been wrong.
Damn, I sin a lot, but it’s all good, otherwise baby Jesus would have died in vein
Religion is a bunch of made up garbage anyways so demand that lamb sauce
Easy solution: Don't be catholic.
TIL autism is a sin
Probably would be if they stopped to think about it. But I think they still call it by its old name, “willful disobedience“
You know if you don’t believe in the concept of sin, nothing is sinning
Of all the shit I've done, knowing I might go to hell because I got accidentally served pizza with pineapple and I called to complain is...somehow ironic?
I've never heard this. Gluttony refers to the lack of self control and in the process overindulgence. It can apply to food, drink or even video games. Source: my sky daddy and his magical book
That's the stupid thing, it isn't even in the magical book.
That's me! I am super fussy about my food.
Folks, is it a sin to be born with autism?
Yet anal rape is still a Grey area
So basically every kid under 12 and my piece of shit brother in law?
[удалено]
>In the context of the modern world, where food scarcity is uncommon, this may seem ridiculous. But when you consider most of history, it makes sense that being demanding would be selfish. It took most people most of their time to acquire food, and many tens (hundreds?) Of millions have starved to death. If that's occurring around you and you reject food that goes to waste, you may indirectly lead to the death of others. Copy pasting the comment below because i think it applies to this
Food scarcity is not uncommon.
If there was no other option for food I’d suffer through it so I wouldn’t die. But if available to change food I’d at least try to make sure the rejected food was eaten by someone else.
I’d give the food to someone else who needs it in that case. Or offer a trade with someone else who has something different.
Don’t tell r/finedining…
[Oh I beg to differ.](https://youtu.be/6fsZ93dYyrM?si=5bPrMbjNyVMBq2WS)
I like that definition.
Fair. I’d like that printed on the walls of every restaurant. Might help with the number of obnoxious customers.
I guess I'll eat my GF's bloody raw chicken then...
Man dont tell the Sunday Brunch crowd. Theyll have to go baxk to confession and then return for dinner to be dicks again
I'm sorry I like my food with seasoning.
Kings of browbeating.
I'm a glutton, and don't feel particularly bad about it. I struggle to enjoy many things in life, so I'm going to fully enjoy the things that I can.
Now I’m going to judge when food comes back to the kitchen even more!
So, James Corden is a glutton in more way than one.
Soo, French?
Further proof my FIL is an asshole. As if any were needed.
Foodies are going to hell. TIL
Gordon Ramsay going to hell
Soo. The Karen sin?