Should obesity be a DF offense?

by jws 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ApagaLaLuz

  I am always amazed at how some (not all, thank goodness) people who have never had a weight problem are so quick to point their skinny little fingers at people "of size". You cannot accuse anyone of gluttony if you don't actually live with that person and see how they eat.

  I was an obese child. I thought I just had bad genes. And while I admit, my genes didnt bless me with an abnormaly high metabolism, after I moved out of my JW parent's house, the weight peeled off me. I never learned how to have a healthy diet. By diet I dont mean a literal diet, but it was mentioned before, going to McDonalds and getting the chicken sandwich or salad instead of the super size. Both of my parents are obese and have suffered numerous health problems because of it. They both say the same thing that they arent gluttonus. I didnt think I was either, till I go back to visit them and see how they eat. Everyone's situation is a little bit different, but I'm just relating to the situation I know first hand.

  p.s. I lost about 50 pounds after moving out. Of course I in no way claim to be a "health nut"

  Chevy..... of the 'likes to smoke a cigarette after leaving the gym, so sue me" class
• 

  Black Sheep

  Yes it should.

  We have to get these people out somehow.
• 

  Hunyadi

  If you are fat, and it is not for health or medical reason, then it can most likely be said that you lack self-control. Yes, according to the WT standards, those who fail to exercise self-control should be disciplined. Repeat offenders get DF'd. The kicker is that the GB seems to overlook one form of excessiveness in favor of DF-ing for another form.

  Corvin
• 

  onacruse

  The WTS will never start DFing people for obesity: just consider the percentages...what, like 40% of Americans are considered "medically" obese (BMI > 28, I think)? I'm borderline to that (245#) now, and was not that long ago 305# (even at 6'-6" 'defined' as obese).

  If they DFd all "obese" people, their statistics would drop like a rock, and that would mean that Jehober was no longer blessing them, and then they'd have to lower publisher requirements to 15 minutes per year to keep the numbers up...and then book and magazine sales would drop off the edge of the continental shelf, and "voluntary donations" would go down the tube, and they'd have to lay off another few thousand Bethelites, and then those Bethelites would come home and tell their families that the organization was dying like a fish out of water, and then, and then...

  eh.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  going to McDonalds and getting the chicken sandwich or salad instead of the super size. Both of my parents are obese and have suffered numerous health problems because of it. They both say the same thing that they arent gluttonus. I didnt think I was either, till I go back to visit them and see how they eat.

  Choosing a hamburger over a chicken sandwich or french fries over a salad or piece of fruit doesn't make a person a glutton. This is a matter of choosing healthier types of food. When I think of gluttony, I think of a person eating large amounts of food. Example: rather than 3 oero cookies someone eats half a package or more. Rather than one hamburger they eat two or three or more hamburgers. I am talking say a quarter pounder or big mac, not a white castle or krystal burger. Instead of eating one piece of wedding cake someone eats several pieces. I wouldn't consider a person a glutton who did this once in a blue moon. I would think it would move into gluttony when the person did this everyday more than once a day. If someone doesn't eat all day and is starved half to death, they might eat two sandwiches. Does that make the person a glutton? I don't think so. It means they are very hungry from going all day without food.

  Heather
• 

  jws

  OrangeFatCat and HadEnuf,

  I'm sorry if this post offends you. It was not meant to pick on fat people. I myself have a weight problem that I have struggled with all of my life. My dad loves to tell the story of how fat I was as a baby. I don't know either of you personally, but I would not discriminate against you because of your weight, just like I don't discriminate against my friends who smoke. Being overweight may or may not be by choice, but it's your life and you're welcome to live it how you please. Just like smoking. It's a person's choice.

  So don't get so defensive. That's not what this post was about. The point of this post is the hypocrisy of the WTBS. They DF people for smoking because it harms your health. Obesity is harmful to your health too. It doesn't matter if you are a glutton or not. It doesn't matter if you have a medical condition causing the weight gain. It doesn't matter whether you eat small amounts and still gain weight. Or if you eat as healthy as you can and still gain weight. If you are overweight, it doesn't matter how you got that way or what you are or aren't doing to control it, it is a health risk. It may or may not have anything to do with gluttony.

  The WTBS discriminates against those who smoke. This is the same thing - overweight people are risking their health, but it is being overlooked.

  I would think most of the people here are ex-JWs and would be supportive of anything that shows their hypocrisy. If overweight people were DFed, there'd be a LOT of them DFed. Like another poster said, it could be the end of the JWs. When people see very good and kind JWs being DFed over their weight, I think a lot of people would have sympathy. Maybe even leave because of it.

  Of course, that's why the JWs will never do that. Besides, part of being the right weight is sometimes to excercise. Can't take time away from going out in service or preparing for meetings...
• 

  blacksheep

  If you are fat, and it is not for health or medical reason, then it can most likely be said that you lack self-control. Yes, according to the WT standards, those who fail to exercise self-control should be disciplined. Repeat offenders get DF'd.

  Well, see that's were a clear determination needs to be made as to the "root causes" of the obesity. To solve this, the JW's should sponsor a doctor's visit of the obese person to determine if, in fact, the person is obese due to a true genetic disorder (actually a fraction of 1% of the current poplulation), or due to overeating (gluttony, lack of self-control, supersizing their meals, etc).

  Once a medical determination has been made, if the obese situation is not due to a medical issue...well, then, the JW in question should be monitored as to caloric intake in an effort to help him or her curb his or her lack of self control.

  If the individual continues to consume more than the recommended daily allowance of calories in an effort to return him or her to an "ideal weight," then, well, what else would the elders be reasonable in doing, but to disfellowship the individual? A reasonable period of time may vary according to the person, the circumstance, and the elders whim.

  Once the obese, unrepentant glutton is disfellowshipped, of course, family members who continue to be true worshippers of Jehovah will need to deal with their obese, uncontrolled, gluttonous family member.

  Certainly, marital connections will continue, provided the fat slob doesn't commit adultry and defile the marital bed (which admittedly would be highly unlikely to happen, in view of the repulsive condition of the glutton.) If the true believer is a woman, and her husband is the obese glutton, of course she would need to honor his request for marital relations, even if his conditioned revolted her, and possibly endangered her life due to the potential for suffocation due to the required missionary position.

  If the true believer is a man, obviously, if he is revolted by his wife's gluttonous behavior and appearance, his natural desire for her may wane, and he may reasonable refuse to engage in the normal sexual intercourse that true worshippers of Jehovah enjoy. Perhaps the obese wife will see this as reason to stop her gluttonous habits.

  Oh, crap, now I'm going off, like the original post...