[Note: the intent of this post is not to show or encourage disdain for those with issues of weight, but specifically in the area where obesity (especially beyond other factors) is sought to be justified, to show the similaries of the arguments between some who seek to justify obesity (and for some - all forms of it) and those who seek to justify homosexuality.]
In the NY Times article "In the Fatosphere, Big Is in, or at Least Accepted", one may see the arguments for accepting obesity sound an awful like those for accepting homosexuality, including the following:
1. In the fatosphere, there's now speak of an "acceptance challenge"; those with "50% more fat" call on others to accept their bodies; and there's a "celebration" of who one is. It's not just the condition but the lifestyle that others must accept.
2. Fat has nothing to do with morality. In fact "fat is not a result of moral failure or a character flaw, or of gluttony, sloth or a lack of willpower" but one must "come to grips" and accept who they are. The problem lies with the labels of others. Being skinny may "have far more to do with the luck of the genetic draw than with lifestyle choices." The issue at the forefront is whether fat is a "choice." (Assumption: Fat people are born that way.... such that one should never take into consideration personal responsibility, repentance, etc.
3. There's a separation and rejection of core beliefs. The obesity epidemic suggested by others is cast off and labelled as "hysteria."
4. Fat bloggers are victims of negative, even viscious comments. Fat people are objects of discrimination.
5. Past personal struggles and failures are used as grounds for justifying their position.
6. New "communities" are being formed for those of like condition and belief. Fat people are called to an "activist" lifestyle and encouraged not to be afraid to indulge.
7. Statistics are distorted as if having a few pounds over is better than being thin justifies obesity.
8. Acceptance in other areas (such as of those who are "tall or short") is presented as rationale for acceptance of obesity.
... When you do away with the gospel, you can try to justify anything, and try to convince others it should be fully accepted!
In the NY Times article "In the Fatosphere, Big Is in, or at Least Accepted", one may see the arguments for accepting obesity sound an awful like those for accepting homosexuality, including the following:
1. In the fatosphere, there's now speak of an "acceptance challenge"; those with "50% more fat" call on others to accept their bodies; and there's a "celebration" of who one is. It's not just the condition but the lifestyle that others must accept.
2. Fat has nothing to do with morality. In fact "fat is not a result of moral failure or a character flaw, or of gluttony, sloth or a lack of willpower" but one must "come to grips" and accept who they are. The problem lies with the labels of others. Being skinny may "have far more to do with the luck of the genetic draw than with lifestyle choices." The issue at the forefront is whether fat is a "choice." (Assumption: Fat people are born that way.... such that one should never take into consideration personal responsibility, repentance, etc.
3. There's a separation and rejection of core beliefs. The obesity epidemic suggested by others is cast off and labelled as "hysteria."
4. Fat bloggers are victims of negative, even viscious comments. Fat people are objects of discrimination.
5. Past personal struggles and failures are used as grounds for justifying their position.
6. New "communities" are being formed for those of like condition and belief. Fat people are called to an "activist" lifestyle and encouraged not to be afraid to indulge.
7. Statistics are distorted as if having a few pounds over is better than being thin justifies obesity.
8. Acceptance in other areas (such as of those who are "tall or short") is presented as rationale for acceptance of obesity.
... When you do away with the gospel, you can try to justify anything, and try to convince others it should be fully accepted!
I'm not sure what you are asking. Can you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteWhile the Bible's purpose is not to be a medical book but the word of God to teach man what God requires of man and what man is to believe concerning God, it provides us with guidance and counsel for handling and dealing with life circumstances, yet that does not mean that we will not experience ailments and troubles common to man.