whats wrong with a little wine?

[_BishopRic]

The best way for Mormons to answer this question is:

"Because God said so -- we don't know why."

As soon as they try to make sense of it, it gets muddy. There's no good logic to the question, so stick with the magical.

[_JAK]

I have never yet met an alcoholic who didn't start with moderation.

There is nothing wrong with a big mac. I can have one every now and then.

Actually, a glass of wine is more healthy than a Big Mac. Notice the use of “a” to indicate a singular.

However, I would generally that an occasional Big Mac is unlikely to make the difference between coronary heart disease and no disease. Virtually all Americans at some age have some coronary heart disease. People who are 95 and up tend to have some coronary heart disease.

Moderation is the critical concept not abstention.

JAK

[_JAK]

The best way for Mormons to answer this question is:

"Because God said so -- we don't know why."

As soon as they try to make sense of it, it gets muddy. There's no good logic to the question, so stick with the magical.

What an absurd position (assuming for the moment that you are actually serious).

God interpretations are irrelevant.

Of course it gets “muddy” as we make sense of that which has one or more unknowns.

That’s how science works. It takes into account all the available information. On that basis, there emerges some consensus. We know with certainty many things today which were not know a mere 100 years ago. The advances have been enormous.

On the other hand, “Because God said so” is not only irrelevant, it lacks consensus on virtually all issues.

JAK

[_BishopRic]

The best way for Mormons to answer this question is:

"Because God said so -- we don't know why."

As soon as they try to make sense of it, it gets muddy. There's no good logic to the question, so stick with the magical.

What an absurd position (assuming for the moment that you are actually serious).

God interpretations are irrelevant.

Of course it gets “muddy” as we make sense of that which has one or more unknowns.

That’s how science works. It takes into account all the available information. On that basis, there emerges some consensus. We know with certainty many things today which were not know a mere 100 years ago. The advances have been enormous.

On the other hand, “Because God said so” is not only irrelevant, it lacks consensus on virtually all issues.

JAK

Unless you're a Mormon.

I'm actually serious. I think for Mormons, "spirit" Trump's logic, so to try to give a scientific answer to a spiritual commandment is futile. Yes, some members try to, and I think they fail miserably. The "magical," or spiritual approach is impossible to debate -- it is their experience, or feeling, that confirms their position.

How do you fight that? It's unbeatable!

[_krose]

Not that it's vital to the conversation, but chocolate does not contain caffeine. It's theobromine, which has similar effects but is not caffeine.

-From xocoatl.org

There is a persistent urban legend that Chocolate contains caffeine. It would seem that this rumor is based primarily on a confusion between two similar alkaloids: caffeine and Theobromine. Theobromine is the active ingredient in Chocolate and it occurs only in Cacao. The two stimulants are related and have a similar structures, but are very different chemicals with different properties, effects and origins. There are of course, some Chocolate products that have added caffeine, but it does not occur naturally in Chocolate.

[_skippy the dead]

Not that it's vital to the conversation, but chocolate does not contain caffeine. It's theobromine, which has similar effects but is not caffeine.

-From xocoatl.org

There is a persistent urban legend that Chocolate contains caffeine. It would seem that this rumor is based primarily on a confusion between two similar alkaloids: caffeine and Theobromine. Theobromine is the active ingredient in Chocolate and it occurs only in Cacao. The two stimulants are related and have a similar structures, but are very different chemicals with different properties, effects and origins. There are of course, some Chocolate products that have added caffeine, but it does not occur naturally in Chocolate.

Actually, there is a slight amount of caffeine in chocolate - it occurs naturally in cocoa beans. It's probably about a third of the amount of theobromine found in chocolate. Further research has shown that some studies show no caffeine due to variations in measuring methods. The actual amount in a bar of chocolate tends to be no more than what you'd find in a cup of decaf - very minimal. Of course, theobromine is similar to caffeine, so it may be hair-splitting.

I'm too lazy to google all of this right now (I've done it before) - If I recall correctly, that xocoatl.org link comes up first in a chocolate and caffeine google search, followed by other studies or information that counters it.

[_krose]

The best way for Mormons to answer this question is:

"Because God said so -- we don't know why."

As soon as they try to make sense of it, it gets muddy. There's no good logic to the question, so stick with the magical.

This is exactly right. That's the only valid response, along with the accompanying "we'll be blessed" in some unspecified way.

You can't make much of a case for the WoW as a great health code, given the recent research on the health benefits of green tea and red wine (tobacco is the only real 'hit'). But your religion can prohibit any substance it wishes for no good reason at all, even if it's only to make you different.

The bigger issue I see is the fact that the principle as practiced does not match very closely the actual text of the revelation. Certain phrases are interpreted strangely ("hot drinks" are coffee and tea, which includes iced tea, but not hot cocoa), while large chunks are virtually ignored. Anyone who follows Sec. 89 as written will not pass a TR interview.

[_krose]

Actually, there is a slight amount of caffeine in chocolate - it occurs naturally in cocoa beans. It's probably about a third of the amount of theobromine found in chocolate. Further research has shown that some studies show no caffeine due to variations in measuring methods. The actual amount in a bar of chocolate tends to be no more than what you'd find in a cup of decaf - very minimal. Of course, theobromine is similar to caffeine, so it may be hair-splitting.

Okay, I take it back; it appears you are correct. A "slight amount" is definitely still an amount. (I actually got the information first from my Organic Chemistry professor back in college.)

The Hershey people do measure a small quantity, with a cup of hot cocoa equal to a cup of decaffeinated coffee. The number they show, though, is about 10% (e.g., SPECIAL DARK bar: 18mg caffeine, 184mg theobromine).

[_JAK]

The best way for Mormons to answer this question is:

"Because God said so -- we don't know why."

As soon as they try to make sense of it, it gets muddy. There's no good logic to the question, so stick with the magical.

What an absurd position (assuming for the moment that you are actually serious).

God interpretations are irrelevant.

Of course it gets “muddy” as we make sense of that which has one or more unknowns.

That’s how science works. It takes into account all the available information. On that basis, there emerges some consensus. We know with certainty many things today which were not know a mere 100 years ago. The advances have been enormous.

On the other hand, “Because God said so” is not only irrelevant, it lacks consensus on virtually all issues.

JAK

Unless you're a Mormon.

I'm actually serious. I think for Mormons, "spirit" Trump's logic, so to try to give a scientific answer to a spiritual commandment is futile. Yes, some members try to, and I think they fail miserably. The "magical," or spiritual approach is impossible to debate -- it is their experience, or feeling, that confirms their position.

How do you fight that? It's unbeatable!

The bias of any religious group clouds the intellect. How can we understand this?

It’s because religious groups do not agree. Yet in that disagreement, each purports to have the answers or the truth. If there were universal agreement, there would be only one religion. Such is not the case.

“Spirit” is quite irrelevant. What’s "spirit"? It’s emotion and demonstrated in emotional displays. Consider the “spirit” of the Patriots going into the Super Bowl. They had “spirit” without doubt. But with 97.5 million viewers, the end result made that “spirit” irrelevant. Or, the Giants had “spirit” also. Now just how is that measured?

I understand that religion is not a sports event exactly. However, there are similarities.

In the case of religion, evidence Trump's “spirit.” With the tight confines of a particular religious box, one might say what you have said. It fails to meet objective standards of information and evidence. Hence, it’s irrelevant in the final analysis.

Contrary to your assertion, “spirit” does not Trump logic..

Nor is there the slightest evidence for “spiritual” beyond the emotion of the moment within the time and culture where it appears. On the other hand, evidence sustains reliable conclusion. It’s not emotional (however, a scientist becomes enthusiastic about a discovery).

It’s an incorrect view you express:
BR: "The 'magical,' or spiritual approach is impossible to debate..” On the contrary, the debate is very much alive.

Questions for emotional (spiritual) perceptions are relentless. What do we know and how do we know it with reliability? Emotion fails in response to that. It relies on feelings. Without question, feelings are unreliable. People have all kinds of feelings about a wide variety of things.

So, how do we confirm reliability? We do it with clear, transparent, unemotional investigation. We do it with evidence which can be clarified by objective evaluation not emotional spiritualism.

That’s how “you fight that.” That is, emotions or feelings necessarily become subservient to the evidence. The Patriots lost. They expected to win. They had “spirit” without question. They had emotions. But, they did not win. The evidence was witnessed by 97 million people on television. Wishful thinking and “spirit” are irrelevant.. That is the answer to your question: “How do you fight that?”

We have witnessed and documented historically the evolution of cultures, civilizations and their religions and superstitions. In the end, it is the reliable documentation which wins the day, not “spirit” which is not distinguished from emotion.

“Magical” can be debated. Rational, honest, intellectual exploration beats the “magical.”

Of course there are the ostrich like individuals who adopt a mentality of: Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up. They are the victims of dogma and indoctrination. They lack intellectual curiosity. They accept (blind faith) what they are told and become emotionally attached to the blind faith.

Blind faith fails to discover honest, open, clear information. Blind faith obscures and obfuscates genuine information.

Contrary to your position, such mentality is beatable. Ignorance is defeated with information and evidence. That some refuse to see the information is trivial. The discoveries move forward and the information accumulates in spite of the blind faith and refusal to examine with open mind that information.

In principle, religion/superstition is revised by information. It may take generations, but it happens.

JAK

[_BishopRic]

Contrary to your position, such mentality is beatable. Ignorance is defeated with information and evidence. That some refuse to see the information is trivial. The discoveries move forward and the information accumulates in spite of the blind faith and refusal to examine with open mind that information.

In principle, religion/superstition is revised by information. It may take generations, but it happens.

JAK

In case you didn't catch it, my words were sarcastic. Of course I agree with you...I especially agree with your statement "It may take generations, but it happens," but I sometimes get a bit frustrated at the patience it is going to take the rest of us!