fake sugar a sin?

[paramedicgirl]

I have run into this question before and it is a perfectly valid one to ask.

The version I have heard is sugarless chewing gum. The point is that if one objects to contraception on the grounds that it thwarts the purpose of sex (having children), Then why is chewing sugarless gum and spitting it out, which which thwarts the purpose of eating (nutrition) acceptable?

I have not tangled with the objection much, but off the top of my head I would say the answer lies in the unitive/procreative purpose of sex, and that it is grave matter while chewing gum is not, but I’ll let others take a whack at it.

There’s is absolutely no relevance there. Those people need to give their head a shake. :nope:

 

[corvidae]

I think the thing that it really comes down to is this.

You have taken an argument against contraception to its logical end. However, if you were eating only things with no nutritional value, I think it would be a sin. The purpose of contraception is to keep the logical ends of procreation out of the act. It does not mean that there cannot be sexual pleasure without procreation. Think of kissing, there is a certain sexual pleasure to a kiss.

So it is not saying that a pleasure anywhere is to an ends, and interfering with that ends is sin. It is saying, there are times when pleasure leads to a natural end, and that end is to …whatever.

If you are only eating no call stuff, you are not fulfilling the end of giving yourself nutrients. It is a different nature of pleasure. Just as if you only kissed so as not to have kids, ever, it could be a form of contraception. (Just as NFP can be a form of contraception)

Just my thoughts.
A lone Raven

 

[paramedicgirl]

To expand on the topic of artificial sweeteners being sinful because they have no nutritive value, by that logic, we wouldn’t be able to eat any preservatives, either. Or artificial flavours. Or food colouring. It certainly would be healthier, though!

 

[AnnaTherese]

Well, keep in mind that white sugar is not “real sugar”. Real sugar is sugar cane, and it does contain nutrients. Most of the nutrients are stripped away during the processing of it into tiny white granules. Rapadura (or sucanat) is closer to the real thing, and still contains most if not all of the nutrients. So a moderate amount of rapadura IMO is actually good for you. Splenda is pure poison. It is definitely not better for you than white sugar. I would say they are probably equally bad. If you want something sweet, use rapadura, maple syrup, raw honey, molasses or stevia, an herbal sweetener. All are created by God Himself, and in their pure form they do impart nutrition.

In Jesus’ time they didn’t have white sugar or white flour. They had honey, though. They may have had occasional desserts of yogurt mixed with honey and berries or something like that.

I also wanted to add that while it may or may not be sinful to eat empty calories (not sure), it definitely contributes to poor health, and if you know this and continue to eat them, then it becomes more grave for you. You are essentially knowingly hastening your own death, aren’t you? Isn’t that disrespecting the temple of the Holy Spirit which you are? God probably wants you to live longer than you would if you ate that stuff (maybe not, but maybe). Given that, I would say that it’s probably at least venially sinful in certain situations. A lot of it depends on your circumstances. Sure, you could potentially move out into the country and start growing your own everything and never eat highly processed food again, but how realistic is that for you, right now, this minute? Maybe healthy foods aren’t as readily available to you as they are to others, so the priority is simply feeding your family with what you have. Going to the bakery for an eclair is hardly keeping your family fed, though. That’s definitely an extra.

I believe God DOES want us to enjoy our food. In fact, He created certain things on this earth that only serve the purpose of enjoyment. Think of diamonds, pearls, rubies and so forth. They do not sustain us in any way. They are purely for our enjoyment. Problem is, we’ve become so addicted to non-foods like soda, chips, cookies, etc that our tastes are tainted and we don’t recognize delicious food when we see it. If we are able to completely wean ourselves off of the poisonous stuff, the good stuff will suddenly become quite appetizing. I know, I’ve done it.

I’m glad you brought up this topic because it is something I probably need to spend more time thinking about. Thanks!!

 

[fix]

To expand on the topic of artificial sweeteners being sinful because they have no nutritive value, by that logic, we wouldn’t be able to eat any preservatives, either. Or artificial flavours. Or food colouring. It certainly would be healthier, though!

I would add many sweeteners break down to other sugars in the body. We just eat such small amounts that they appear as no calorie.

I think it is wrong-minded to conclude such things are all bad or evil simply because they are man made or many choose to eat them immoderately.

I cannot see how using any of them would fall under gluttony if used as they are intended.

Also, I would say pleasure in itself is neither good or evil. It is the antecedent action that defines it.

 

[Celeste88]

Water has no nutritional value and yet is is necessary for survival. I myself don’t like water yet I need it so I drink palatable beverages to sustain me. These may contain Splenda or Nutrasweet (no sugar as I’m a diabetic)

There are others who say that artificial sweeteners are bad and that real sugar or Stevia is good. I’m not 100% convinced that artificial sweeteners cause brain cancers and degenerative diseases like some “nutritionists” are quick to point out. If a company is manufacting something harmful and failing to warn the public that is their sin of course. We have to use our own judgement as what we put in our mouths and stomches.

 

[Magicsilence]

Nor would anyone else on the planet. Perhaps it’s time to find a new hobby.

This was pretty much the general response I got to a thread I posted about the subject a few months back.

It seems the tide has turned

I believe eating anything that is mainly bad for you but tastes good is sinful, but circumstances depend.

So, for example, if you wake up on Saturday, trot down to the bakery and order a supersize double chocolate cream eclair, it would be sinful/ an imperfection.

However, if your Mom made you some chocolate chip cookies for your welcome home party after you had been in Iraq fighting the war, it would not be sinful, for it is in the spirit of the time, and it is not inherently sinful. But, if you took a stash of 20 of them and started stuffing your face it would be wrong.

For example, recently I have been trying to gain weight, since I recently had a growth spurt, and am a little lanky looking

I bought a pack of chocolate biscuits so that I can help my body get some extra calories, and have a few on and off. Yes, they taste nice too.

But as another poster has stated, its all about your mentality.

When you CAN NOT say no to some sort of food, then you are probably a glutton.

E.g, I can go for weeks without chocolate, biscuits, sweets etc…, though that doesnt mean its easy to say no to them.

Its all about discipline.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[batteddy]

If you just ate a packet of Sweet ‘n’ Low plain…yes, then it would probably be gluttony as it would totally go against the nature of food and be only for pleasure. Though I’m not sure of the exact chemistry; if the body could still use the carbons and hydrogens and stuff…it might be okay.

But if it is in soda, etc…then the *water *or fluid in the product is still considered as fullfilling the nutritive purpose of eating.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on “gluttony” says:

It is incontrovertible that to eat or drink for the mere pleasure of the experience, and for that exclusively, is likewise to commit the sin of gluttony. Such a temper of soul is equivalently the direct and positive shutting out of that reference to our last end which must be found, at least implicitly, in all our actions.

 

[jennyr]

Alcohol is also empty calories. 7 calories per gram. No nutrition. Everything in moderation! Nutritionists often quote the 80/20 rule: If 80% of what you eat is good, healthy food, don’t worry so much about the other 20%.

So, if you see me in the supermarket with ice cream, that’s my 20%

thats a good point, I didn’t think about alcohol.

 

[jennyr]

This was pretty much the general response I got to a thread I posted about the subject a few months back.

It seems the tide has turned

I believe eating anything that is mainly bad for you but tastes good is sinful, but circumstances depend.

So, for example, if you wake up on Saturday, trot down to the bakery and order a supersize double chocolate cream eclair, it would be sinful/ an imperfection.

However, if your Mom made you some chocolate chip cookies for your welcome home party after you had been in Iraq fighting the war, it would not be sinful, for it is in the spirit of the time, and it is not inherently sinful. But, if you took a stash of 20 of them and started stuffing your face it would be wrong.

For example, recently I have been trying to gain weight, since I recently had a growth spurt, and am a little lanky looking

I bought a pack of chocolate biscuits so that I can help my body get some extra calories, and have a few on and off. Yes, they taste nice too.

But as another poster has stated, its all about your mentality.

When you CAN NOT say no to some sort of food, then you are probably a glutton.

E.g, I can go for weeks without chocolate, biscuits, sweets etc…, though that doesnt mean its easy to say no to them.

Its all about discipline.

Peace and God Bless.

Interesting, thanks so much! God Bless

 

[Em_in_FL]

Just a random thought going through my head that im sure people can help me with… I understand that lust is bad because you are trying to seperate pleasure from the act of re-production. (among other reasons that its bad)

My head just continued that analysis though and wouldn’t that make diet soda, low-fat foot, etc serious sins? You are gaining pleasure without nutrition… you are gaining pleasure without getting full or as full as you should?

Obviously gluttony is a problem, but I wouldn’t consider a single diet coke gluttinous, but maybe it is.

St. Paul was an advocate for the concept of moderation…

There is nothing inherently wrong with taking joy from a good meal or drink…
Nor is it wrong to try to take care of the health of your body (which is a gift from God) by not eating too much sugar…

Pleasure in life is not against the teachings of the Church…
Gluttony and self-serving motives are.

Christ himself chose ALCOHOL to be the conveyance of HIS presence…

 

[Valke2]

Just a random thought going through my head that im sure people can help me with… I understand that lust is bad because you are trying to seperate pleasure from the act of re-production. (among other reasons that its bad)

My head just continued that analysis though and wouldn’t that make diet soda, low-fat foot, etc serious sins? You are gaining pleasure without nutrition… you are gaining pleasure without getting full or as full as you should?

Obviously gluttony is a problem, but I wouldn’t consider a single diet coke gluttinous, but maybe it is.

Without lust, there would be no reprodcution. And lust with artifical sweetner’s is the best.

 

[Scottgun]

Without lust, there would be no reprodcution. And lust with artifical sweetner’s is the best.

Funny. Pardon my nerdiness.

Lust is inordinate sexual desire.
Not all sexual desire is inordinate.
Therefore, reproduction is not necessarily dependent on lust.

 

[Island_Oak]

The Opening Poster sounds like a gentle and kind soul, and I think this cutting and sarcastic response is uncharitable, Oak. Why post at all if only to respond like this? I don’t understand the purpose of your response. It sounds mean to me.

You’re right. My apologies to the OP. Seemed like a silly issue over which to agonize–but the sarcastic tone was not warranted or appropriate.

 

[geezerbob]

I avoid artificial sweeteners because they upset my tummy but have no problems with others using them.

On a side note, I read yesterday that artificial sweeteners can be fatal to dogs. Five of eight dogs that were fed (or got into) foods made with artificial sweeteners died due to liver failure.

 

[Lillith]

Interesting conversation. I agree moderation is the key.

We can’t really compare contraception and artificial sweetners though. Marriage is a sacrament, and it is a covenent that we make with our Spouse and with God. A lack of openess to life within the sacrament of marriage is putting a barrier between us and God…Splenda hasn’t got that kind of (negative) Power.

 

[GarryOwen]

Do we eat to survive or survive to eat. Eating should be a pleasurable thing rather than attending to the needs of our harmful cravings.

 

[AnnaTherese]

Maybe this is a good way to look at it: If you were a beggar on the street and someone handed you a soda or a roll of lollipops, would you take it? Probably yes. Would it fill you up or sustain you? Probably not. Would it add anything to your health? Maybe a little water from the soda, and that’s it. So should you take it or not?

 

[katybird]

Sugar is sugar is sugar. By the time it’s been through your digestive system and enters your blood stream, it doesn’t matter if it was originally honey or if it was heavily processed down from sugar cane.

Sugar DOES have nutritional value: calories. People on IV’s when they can’t eat are essentially hooked up to a drip of sugar water. For a while - until vitamin and mineral deficiencies become an issue, that’s all you need to survive. It’s nice to eat an orange because, in addition to being really sweet and yummy, it also comes with fiber and vitamin C

Sure, it would be better to eat all-natural foods with no sweetening or additives, but God gave us taste buds - and a predilection to seek out sweet stuff - for a reason. We just have to be careful because we can now get our hands on sugars so much easier than our ancestors could.

As for artificial sweeteners: if it helps you by fooling the taste buds into thinking they’re getting sweets without adding unneeded calories, I don’t think it’s such a bad thing that you need to worry.

I would think that it may be better to become accustomed to unsweetened foods if you can’t have more sugar. But, I have never struggled with my weight, nor am I diabetic. I know my husband can’t stand to drink plain water. He has to have artificially sweetened “squash” added to it. (“squash” is a concentrated syrup you dilute with water to end up with something like Kool-Aid.) He’s on a diet and so that’s all he drinks. Maybe the aspartame isn’t good for him, but it’s more important that he lose weight and get enough hydration into him.

 

[jennyr]

Wait a minute here…time out, let me get this straight…

Some of you folks are saying that artificial sweeteners are sinful because it is the good taste without any benefit to the body?

So, in your opinion, if I put Splenda in my Iced Tea, that is sinful, but I can run down to the bakery and stuff my face with an eclair and that is just dandy?

It makes little sense. I wouldn’t call it scrupulous, however. The rule of thumb is moderation. The eclair is far worse for your body than the Iced Tea with Splenda. So wouldn’t doing damage to your body be more sinful than using a sweetener in your Iced Tea?

By the way, I’ve visited the provincial houses of many religious orders, every one of them has splenda on the table.

Thanks for posting. First off I wasn’t saying anything for sure, I was just asking.

My original question was based on the statement that “anything done outside it’s intention” can be wrong/is wrong. And eating an eclair is different. After eating a few you gain weight and is something you need to burn off, perhaps by not having sweets for awhile. Fake sugar though allows you to taste sweets without any reprocutions. It might seem like a silly post, but its something Ive been thinking about.