Caffeine is bad for you spiritually

[_madeleine]

In regards to spirituality, my experience is, it has many definitions. I get the sense for LDS people that it is what they name their relationship with God. Doing certain things, or not doing certain things, they view as harming that relationship, therefore it is viewed as bad.

Many Catholics have the same view, however, that is not the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. We may wound ourselves spiritually, or feel others have inflicted spiritual suffering, but Christ has healed all wounds. We aren't separated by our spiritual suffering, no, through Jesus Christ we are reconciled, to God of course, but also to each other.

[_JAK]

Post Reference

madeleine,

This is a nicely articulated comment. However it begs the question: “What is spirituality?” which I asked previously above. It also begs the issues of relative value (such as the value of caffeine or assertions of “spirituality” as somehow connected).

Let’s look at some of the particulars here.
madeleine stated:
I don't have the need or desire to prove my own experience, or, to negate the experience of anyone else.

While that’s fine wherein there are few if any consequences to conclusions one may reach, in matters of health in which medical science (as one example) calls for rational, confirmed consensus, there are those who need to establish the validity of conclusions reached via shared research and tested conclusions. Those do not rely on emotional appeal.

madeleine stated:
I can question, with skepticism as well, the experience of others. Others can and do the same for mine. I don't view experience as supporting an ideology, or, experience itself as ideological. Experience is how we live reality. Unless a person has nihilist leanings, I wouldn't know how else we would verify what is real and what is not.

--Exactly so in the first part. In the last sentence, we can “verify…” conclusions based on multiple observations, tests, retesting, controlled studies (actually a form of test). However, the “experience” of some historically has the effect of “supporting an ideology.” While “experience is how we live…,” it also can be how we establish that consensus that is not manipulated by the “ideology” of others or by the “ideology” of a particular group with partisan objectives in its own interests.

That is “how else we would verify what is real…” We do it by shared, collective research that reaches tentative conclusions based on evidence for articulated positions/conclusions. While some might argue that life is without objective meaning, we do have families whose members have emotional meaning to one another. We can objectify and quantify emotional responses and to some degree the intensity of those emotional responses.

However, in the larger context, we tend to want fact over fiction as we go about the daily tasks of turning on lights, starting cars, boarding airplanes, and a multitude of other things for which “ideology,” as such, is irrelevant. We tend to have different “experience(s).” While that experience does not support ideology, many tend to believe otherwise and that they must make their experience(s) comport with some ideology beyond the general welfare and good for their fellow humans as well as their shared planet.

madeleine stated:
I can't see how one disconnects themselves from experience, as to me that is disconnecting oneself from reality.

Shared information is not a disconnected from experience. Never having faced real hunger to the point of starvation is the “experience” of nearly half the human population. Poverty in the US is a shared “experience” for one in five children in this country and the “experience” of roughly 15% of Americans. Yet, we who write on computers are well disconnected from that experience. That makes it no less a “reality” for those who are so impoverished. Moreover, that level of poverty can be measured in physical, statistical ways (and has been). To recognize that even in part is to “disconnect” one’s self from that which is outside his/her “reality” of “experience.” I think you likely can see that despite your comment above.

madeleine stated:
However, this doesn't imply that reason is disregarded. In fact no, it is reason that allows us to look at our experiences as verification of reality.

On the contrary, in light of my paragraph just above, information and a deep appreciation for the fact that others have vastly different “experience” than others can enable us to “disconnect” in an intellectual way from our own experience and perhaps to make an important difference to others who do not share our situation. This is not to suggest that one’s experience is not important. Of course, it is. At the same time, it is narrow if one uses it as blinder to the “reality” which is experienced by others.

madeleine stated:
To separate reason from experience, or experience from reason, is not a human approach to life. As this is exactly what everyone is doing almost every moment of their lives (while awake of course).

For many this is exactly what they do. They separate reason from experience. Consider the politicians who what to deny federal aid to hurricane victims unless such aid is a spending cut somewhere else (which they rarely specify). Such an “approach to life” (their life) is exactly what they do as they campaign and speak to those who share their uncompassionate view. And yet, these same politicians want aid when it’s their district or state that has been wrenched by a weather disaster. The word for that is hypocrisy. And they “separate reason from experience…” their experience.

Such is “a human approach to life” contrary to your observation above. At the same time, there are those, those humans, who are able to transcend the comfort of their own lives to the extent that they become advocates for the amelioration of poverty and all which poverty brings to those who have no voice.

madeleine stated:
So while my experience verifies reality, which has for me a name, Jesus Christ, I fully recognize that until another person encounters this Reality, they are not looking at experience, but rather testimony.

While this reflects a narrow retreat to one’s own “experience,” it begs far larger questions of “reality” that is the experience of others. It also reflects a narrow view of religious dogma as only what “my experience verifies…” as you state. Others have “encounters” with a different “Reality” which you seem not to recognize. Rhetorically speaking, how would/do you relate to or work with a Jew, an Arab, a Buddhist, etc.? Are you willing and able to accept their “reality” as equally valid with your perceptions? (Rhetorically speaking)

“Testimony” is what precisely? In CSA’s case, the assertion (absent evidence) is that “caffeine is bad for you spiritually.” That remains a vague claim lacking any specific documentation as to relative degree as I previously observed. “Testimony” is what?

madeleine stated:
This in and of itself is not unreasonable, as sharing our experiences with others is a human experience. You can view with skepticism, which is a reasonable response, but your response does not negate my experience.

Yes, it is “unreasonable” and unreasoned. It’s a product of indoctrination and a repetition of dogma. While it may be combined with some personal experience, the experience is a manipulation of a series of experiences, all of which lead to the “testimony.” It is “unreasonable” and unreasoned in the light of a wider, more comprehensive view of other experiences which others have had. For those facing starvation, “caffeine” and “testimony” are as irrelevant as an earthworm in my yard.

I notice no comment on Families of Christian Denominations in the North America (for which I gave a link previously). Some 1,500 different Christian groups are given some detail there. They do not treat “testimony” with any uniformity. Credibility and reliability should be challenged.

One’s experience is what it is. It does not necessarily validate nor refute the experience of others. However, in a science lab, the experience and results of others working on a problem (or the similar problems), the “experiences” of all are relevant and open to skeptical review.

madeleine stated:
Hope that explains my view clearly. :).

It does not address numerous issues raised in this post. While it is easier to ignore questions or simply make additional statements, it’s not an engaged rejoinder to multiple issues raised. I have raised further points here as well. It’s difficult for anyone (and I’m included) to be resolute in effort to address issues of meaning and extended definition for terms used.

I’ll post this, but it fails to include comments which you posted here. Perhaps I can address that later.

JAK

[_CSA]

I don't think spirituality can be measured by anyone except for the person who feels spiritual. I think you keep assuming, and I assumed this also at the beginning that a third party can quantify and identify someone else's spirituality or even the change in spirituality.

While I believe that the Word of Wisdom was given for an important purpose, I also realize that it is not as important as let's say reading and understanding God's word (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.) or going to the temple.

I used to drink caffeinated soda, but now only occasionally drink non-caffeinated soda. I believe my strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom helps me with my spirituality and if I were to drink caffeine again, my spirituality may suffer. As for the experiment, I still will encourage others to live healthy lives, but I am not interested in proving this anymore.

[_JAK]

In regards to spirituality, my experience is, it has many definitions. I get the sense for LDS people that it is what they name their relationship with God. Doing certain things, or not doing certain things, they view as harming that relationship, therefore it is viewed as bad.

Many Catholics have the same view, however, that is not the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. We may wound ourselves spiritually, or feel others have inflicted spiritual suffering, but Christ has healed all wounds. We aren't separated by our spiritual suffering, no, through Jesus Christ we are reconciled, to God of course, but also to each other.

First, ”God” is not established. It’s irrelevant to make assertion about “harming” a “relationship” with an entity not established. It’s an assumed entity. Historically, human species moved from superstition to multiple gods to few gods to one God in the evolution of the gods. Therefore, God inventions are widely varied. People have appealed to their God to help them kill and maim others who appeal to a different God. They do so to the present.

Few, if any religious groups have much interest in the historical evolution of what they regard as a correct perception of God. Rather, people take the word of official doctrine from a particular religious organization (organized religion). Today, most religion IS organized with specific beliefs as well as designated commission and omission of particular conduct. Opposition to caffeine (as in coffee or soda) is a minority view. However it’s not distinct to LDS. There other groups who oppose consumption of any amount of caffeine. At the same time, there are religious organizations which make a point of having a “coffee hour” between services and even have a coffee station in a central gathering place where members can mingle and enjoy a cup of coffee. (Christian diversity) I attend many pipe organ concerts in an Episcopal church which has receptions for the artist. That reception includes cheeses, wine, lemonade, coffee, hors d'œuvres, etc. Episcopalians subscribe to some notion of “spiritual.” They also use wine in their communion (not grape juice).

In your first paragraph, “bad” has no clarification. How does having a martini compare with having a cup of coffee in the “bad” category? Perhaps I should choose a more closely related comparison. Suppose the coffee is decaffeinated? I asked that question previously. If it’s caffeine that is “bad,” then drinking coffee that has as little (2%) caffeine should be 98% better than drinking regular coffee. At the same time, a demitasse is heavily fortified with caffeine. Is that worse? How is “bad” distinguished? It is not distinguished! It’s just hung out there in this thread as if it were an absolute.

So, an LDS is “harming” a “relationship” with an entity not established. God is a claim, an assertion. Following that are MORE assertions regarding that manufactured entity. I get the sense that “LDS people” really don’t know what they are talking about. Vague language, vague reference, vague notions of “harming” combine to make meaningless claims.

As I pointed out previously, sugar is “bad” if one is a diabetic. On the other hand, if one is normal in health, sugar in moderation is not “bad.” The same might be said for caffeine. How is caffeine worse than sugar? If one has arterial fibrillation with no caffeine, then caffeine is likely to be “bad” – even dangerous. God is irrelevant. God is a claim, an assertion.

Some religious groups (many Protestants) object to the consumption of alcoholic drinks. At the same time, some Protestant churches and Roman Catholics churches USE WINE in their communion service. (One does not get much wine at communion, however.)

”Bad” remains a term in this thread without relative comparison. Hence, “bad” is a meaningless term. In addition “spiritual” has not been detailed. What is that other than my characterization in a previous post? You did not address it (no fault implied). But CSA did not address it, and there is fault implied. What is CSA talking about? CSA has the burden of proof in the claim.

It’s a cop-out to have a rejoinder that says: You’re just not one of us. Of course I am not. But I can ask questions. Failure to respond to questions in a meaningful way is failure to address relevant inquiry. That is the challenge to CSA. I understand that you are attempting to explain, but it’s not working well. Previously, I asked: What’s spiritual? Thus far, I have no answer. If the contention is that “spiritual” is related to some God claim. That claim needs to be addressed first. Absent a clearly articulated, understandable, demonstrable detail, God claims are without value.

It seems as if advocates for “spiritual” or for God have not given such references much intellectual inquiry. Why is that? I submit it is a result of indoctrination from cradle up (generally). While individuals do convert from one religion to another, such individuals are a minority compared with those who, for example, are reared from cradle up as Roman Catholic or Muslim.

Your second paragraph is merely a statement of doctrine. It’s an assertion absent any address of terms that must remain vague if the doctrine is to sell. And, I recognize that doctrine does sell.

However, you are using the terminology of dogma with no articulation of detailed definition. That’s what I called for in This Post.

I understand that Mormons do not like to be regarded as one of many Protestants resulting from the Protestant Reformation. But the fact remains that they are just that historically. They are, to be sure, a late comers to the Protestant Reformation. And, with a slight manipulation of wording, Mormons attempt to distinguish themselves from all other Christian groups. Nevertheless, they are but one of those 1,500 groups (previously referenced) which lay claim to a version of Christianity. They are not Buddhist. They are not Hindu. They are not Muslim, etc.

JAK

[_JAK]

I don't think spirituality can be measured by anyone except for the person who feels spiritual. I think you keep assuming, and I assumed this also at the beginning that a third party can quantify and identify someone else's spirituality or even the change in spirituality.

While I believe that the Word of Wisdom was given for an important purpose, I also realize that it is not as important as let's say reading and understanding God's word (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.) or going to the temple.

I used to drink caffeinated soda, but now only occasionally drink non-caffeinated soda. I believe my strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom helps me with my spirituality and if I were to drink caffeine again, my spirituality may suffer. As for the experiment, I still will encourage others to live healthy lives, but I am not interested in proving this anymore.

The problem here, CSA, is that you don’t think. That’s why my challenges to you are so difficult. You have made no intellectual effort to define whatever it is that you regard as “spirituality.” Just what is it? More argument absent evidence that: “I don't think spirituality can be measured by anyone except for the person who feels spiritual” is of no benefit to you. What does that mean?

If I were to tell you that I have little green people in my attic, what would you say to me? What would you ask of me? If I were further to argue that: I don’t think these little green people can be measured by anyone except for me, what would you say to me?

What should you say to me? At the very least “a third party” is required to test the assertion. What device for “measured” do you have? It’s a reasonable question. You speak of measuring and “spiritual.” What is “spiritual”? Absent some cogent response to that, you have no basis to convey “measured.”

This kind of language is the language of double-talk which is meaningless to thoughtful listeners. To declare that you feel spiritual, is to invite the question: What do you mean by the expression? You merely continue to assert spirituality when challenged to define it, demonstrate how even you measure it. You have not done that.

You do demonstrate that you have been so well indoctrinated that intellectual integrity is not possible in your response.

Try to recognize that what you call “strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom…” is ambiguous. If you read my comments to madeleine, you should also have noticed that there are hundreds and hundreds of Christian groups, each of which have their own notion of what a phrase like “Word of Wisdom” actually means. Their perception, like yours, conjures up its own assumptions.

A phrase like “reading and understanding God’s word…” is open to enormous quantity and levels of interpretation as to just what that phrase means.

A high quality secular university offers a course or multiple courses on Study and Development of Religions. Such a course(s) probes the history (dates) and the development or evolution of religious doctrines. It does not attempt to champion a singular religious view as superior to others, but rather, it compares and contrasts various religious perspectives showing similarities and differences.

It appears from your writing that you have little or no connection with the academics in a study of religions and their various time-lines.

Even so, you use language which cries out for clarification. What is meant by “bad” in various contexts? What is meant by “spirituality” even in your contexts?

Now I understand why you wish to withdraw from your assertion that was the title of this thread. You do because you cannot rise to the demands of questions for you. You prefer to keep on blinders (not unlike others of different religious persuasions).

Understand that I am too an advocate that people “live healthy lives.” I’m speaking of medically healthy lives. That includes mentally healthy lives.

As for “proving,” you have proved nothing through assertions regarding God claims or through assertions regarding spirituality.

I introduced a plethora of issues which you appear to be unable to address. So, let’s be clear. You have not established a negative for moderate consumption of caffeine. And we can establish a clear connection to health threats through excessive consumption of most anything including pure water.

Since you have proved nothing, “…not interested in proving this anymore” is of no import. You appear to prefer mindless belief which is fact-free.

JAK

[_CSA]

The problem here, CSA, is that you don’t think. That’s why my challenges to you are so difficult. You have made no intellectual effort to define whatever it is that you regard as “spirituality.” Just what is it? More argument absent evidence that: “I don't think spirituality can be measured by anyone except for the person who feels spiritual” is of no benefit to you. What does that mean?

Can you define love? Just what is it? Can it be measured? How can you actually prove that you have it?

If I were to tell you that I have little green people in my attic, what would you say to me? What would you ask of me? If I were further to argue that: I don’t think these little green people can be measured by anyone except for me, what would you say to me?

What should you say to me? At the very least “a third party” is required to test the assertion. What device for “measured” do you have? It’s a reasonable question. You speak of measuring and “spiritual.” What is “spiritual”? Absent some cogent response to that, you have no basis to convey “measured.”

This kind of language is the language of double-talk which is meaningless to thoughtful listeners. To declare that you feel spiritual, is to invite the question: What do you mean by the expression? You merely continue to assert spirituality when challenged to define it, demonstrate how even you measure it. You have not done that.

You may continue to assert a love you may feel, but when challenged to define you simply provide words and examples of some sort of compassion, but have you really defined what this love is that you feel? I can not have a third party count the little green men who exist in your mind just as you can not have a third party measure the spirituality or love that anyone feels. So you might as well acknowledge that you don't believe in love either, because you have not found a way to measure it.

Try to recognize that what you call “strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom…” is ambiguous. If you read my comments to madeleine, you should also have noticed that there are hundreds and hundreds of Christian groups, each of which have their own notion of what a phrase like “Word of Wisdom” actually means. Their perception, like yours, conjures up its own assumptions.

If you can not recognize that others can, and do have other perceptions besides the one's that you simply don't understand then there is not much I can do to convince you.

A phrase like “reading and understanding God’s word…” is open to enormous quantity and levels of interpretation as to just what that phrase means.

A high quality secular university offers a course or multiple courses on Study and Development of Religions. Such a course(s) probes the history (dates) and the development or evolution of religious doctrines. It does not attempt to champion a singular religious view as superior to others, but rather, it compares and contrasts various religious perspectives showing similarities and differences.

It appears from your writing that you have little or no connection with the academics in a study of religions and their various time-lines.

Even so, you use language which cries out for clarification. What is meant by “bad” in various contexts? What is meant by “spirituality” even in your contexts?

Now I understand why you wish to withdraw from your assertion that was the title of this thread. You do because you cannot rise to the demands of questions for you. You prefer to keep on blinders (not unlike others of different religious persuasions).

Understand that I am too an advocate that people “live healthy lives.” I’m speaking of medically healthy lives. That includes mentally healthy lives.

As for “proving,” you have proved nothing through assertions regarding God claims or through assertions regarding spirituality.

I introduced a plethora of issues which you appear to be unable to address. So, let’s be clear. You have not established a negative for moderate consumption of caffeine. And we can establish a clear connection to health threats through excessive consumption of most anything including pure water.

Since you have proved nothing, “…not interested in proving this anymore” is of no import. You appear to prefer mindless belief which is fact-free.

JAK

Looks as if the blinders that cover my eyes are quite small when compared to some who contribute to this board.

[_JAK]

CSA Post Reference

This discussion, CSA, was begun by you titled "Caffeine is bad for you spiritually.”

While you would like to change the subject, this failed attempt further demonstrates your inability to address the many issues raised regarding your claims and implied assertions.

This failure to define and clarify your own terms confirms lack of intellectual integrity on the topic which you introduced. The burden of proof for the assertions which you make is upon you. The burden to clarify and explain your terms is upon you. By making no attempt, by continued repetition of assertions, and now by attempting to change the subject, you fail the discussion.

In a variety of posts here, I have addressed your topic as the “Post subject.” You failed to articulate clarification regarding the issues and questions raised. This is the issue under the “Post subject.”

JAK

[_Blixa]

Woke up today and had few cups of coffee. I was immediately filled with inspiration and wrote two lectures for class this week, as well as assembling notes for a class blog on a number of dense and complicated issues.

Then I worked on some photography and art making (influenced by the work I'm doing in my classes) and switched gears easily to take up a large body of archival research and start cross-referencing it for my own use.

Mid morning yoga and pilates, lunch, and I'm now spending a few hours in random (re)reading: Joe Orton's plays, Lolita, selected sections of the Old Testament.

It's half past twelve and I've had a productive day already.









I still think CSA is a troll/sock puppet.

[_JAK]

This is funny!

I had one cup of coffee. It did not have the effect on me which you describe that a "few" had on you. Maybe I should increase my quantity! Even so, I did accomplish most of the things on my agenda, and (in the Eastern time zone) I am contemplating a martini (with gin).

You are certainly an ambitious person, Blixa!

JAK

[_madeleine]

Jak,

Scientific method can prove a lot of things, it is a useful tool, but it has yet to prove anything of a spiritual nature. Belief in God is not superstition, it an experience, a very human one as can be seen by looking at human history.

I don't go for the idea of different realities for everyone. There is one reality, experienced in different ways by different people. Including how people experience God. Science does not negate reality, it just explains it. God does not negate science, as He is the author of what is being studied, and of our reason and intellect.

Obviously, you don't believe so, and I have no qualms with that. I'm certainly not trying to convert you.

As I said, I come from an atheist background, and I not only knew all the arguments you are making, I made them. I also had strong nihilist leanings. There came a point where I saw through them, and still do. I know for you they are ironclad, but my experience is, they are not. It is a weak position, comparable for me to the emperor who has no clothes. In other words, I see assertions coming from you, just as you see them coming from me.

The first is, an assumption that we can prove or disprove anything using only the tools we're born with, or those we make, and our intellect....this doesn't hold up for someone who has strong nihilist leanings. For such a person, you can't prove anything.

You have similar leanings, as a nihilist will always question experience, you have just chosen to accept the experiences you want to accept, and discard the ones you want to discard. You think it is methodical, but it isn't, it is subjective.

Either experience proves things, or it doesn't. You're just picking and choosing which experiences do and which experiences don't.