"However, during the early centuries of Christianity, followers of Epicureanism were often misrepresented as people who organized banquets and orgies. This was a not true. In reality, the Epicureans advocated for a life centered around friendship and the thoughtful consideration of the consequences of everyday choices. They favored present moderation — such as having just one glass of wine — to avoid greater misfortunes in the future, like a hangover. But they proposed a life far removed from politics, which harmed the school’s influence, as Méndez Lloret points out.”
I need to read the full article, but out of context I am not gonna lie-- most of this is damning with faint praise and I would repudiate it as helpful to the Epicurean cause. It totally ignores the revolutionary philosophical and moral side of Epicurus' teachings which distinguish him from the passive ascetics for whom "moderation" and "a life far from politics" is something to be sought instead of prudence and pleasure and engagement with what the world has to offer.
Again I will read the full article to see if there is more context, but once again we have a so-called defense of Epicureans without once mentioning "pleasure" - except to distance them from it (banquets and orgies).
