posted
The Word of Wisdom was given as a specific request from Joseph Smith's wife over some concerns she had over the men's use of tobacco.
Joseph Smith received the revelation in the way that he did (and some Mormons disagree on exactly what that meant -- whether the language he received it came directly from God or whether he received impressions, phrases, images that he then turned into the written word) and he received it in response to that particular query.
How the words of Word of Wisdom have been interpreted, applied and 'enforced' has varied over the history of the Church.
As has been already stated, what it is officially been taken to mean at this time is to abstain from coffee, tea (black tea), alcohol and harmful drugs.
As with many Mormon practicies certain cultural interpretations have accreted to modern Mormons understanding of the Word of Wisdom. These have come most strongly out of the cultural mores of American middle class of the 1950s and of the organic/back-to-earth movements of the 1960 and '70s (my best friend's family when I was kid didn't eat any refined sugar or flour -- lots of carob and honey and whole grains in their house) as well as the prevailing consumer habits of the past four decades (i.e. there are quite a few Mormons who are fond of a caffeinated Big Gulp).
As Primal Curve has poiinted out, although there are demonstratable health benefits from following much of what can be found in the Word of Wisdom (whatever your interpretation of it may be), not everything that it prohibits has been proven to be harmful. Tea, alcohol in moderation, etc.
What is clear to me is that living the Word of Wisdom has spiritual benefits and that at its' most basic and pure form (and one that I don't live up to by any means), keeping your body free from any substances that significantly alter your blood sugar levels, brain chemistry, etc. aids in attuning yourself to the spirit of God.
The ambiguity is, in my opinion, intentional. It's part of the strange dynamic of Mormonism and one that I thing can be quite productive so long as members keep things in tension. It also causes some members to either hedge up the way with rules so they feel more secure or push the envelope because they want in their heart to turn away from God. I find that both paths are rather tempting.
----- Scott: I hear you, brother.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wasn't Iced Tea invented at a World's Fair when someone had the bright idea to take *regular tea* and *make it colder*? It might post-date Joseph Smith. But it's no different from regular tea, except that it's cold.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm at work right now so I don't have time to do an extensive workup on the detrimental effects of coffee-- but at any rate, most of the detrimental things are related to the caffeine content.
Wiki:
quote:Risks
Many notable effects of coffee are related to its caffeine content.
Many coffee drinkers are familiar with "coffee jitters", a nervous condition that occurs when one has had too much caffeine. Coffee can also increase blood pressure among those with high blood pressure, but follow-up studies showed that coffee still decreased the risk of dying from heart disease in the aggregate. Coffee can also cause insomnia in some, while paradoxically it helps a few sleep more soundly. It can also cause anxiety and irritability, in some with excessive coffee consumption, and some as a withdrawal symptom. There are also gender-specific effects, in some PMS sufferers it increases the symptoms, and it can reduce fertility in women, also it may increase the risk of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, and there may be risks to a fetus if a pregnant woman drinks 8 or more cups a day (48 U.S. fl oz or 1.4 L or more).
A February 2003 Danish study of 18,478 women linked heavy coffee consumption during pregnancy to significantly increased risk of stillbirths (but no significantly increased risk of infant death in the first year). "The results seem to indicate a threshold effect around four to seven cups per day," the study reported. Those who drank eight or more cups a day (48 U.S. fl oz or 1.4 L) were at 220% increased risk compared with nondrinkers. This study has not yet been repeated, but has caused some doctors to caution against excessive coffee consumption during pregnancy.
Decaffeinated coffee is occasionally regarded as a potential health risk to pregnant women, due to the high incidence of chemical solvents used to extract the caffeine. These concerns have almost no basis, however, as the solvents in question evaporate at 80–90 °C, and coffee beans are decaffeinated before roasting, which occurs at approximately 200 °C. As such, these chemicals, namely trichloroethane and methylene chloride, are present in trace amounts at most, and neither pose a significant threat to unborn children. Women still worried about chemical solvents in decaffeinated coffee should opt for beans which use the Swiss water process, where no chemicals other than water are used, although higher amounts of caffeine remain.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study in 2004 which tried to discover why the beneficial and detrimental effects of coffee are conflicting. The study concluded that consumption of coffee is associated with significant elevations in biochemical markers of inflammation. This is a detrimental effect of coffee on the cardiovascular system, which may explain why coffee has so far only been shown to help the heart at levels of four cups (20 fl oz or 600 mL) or fewer per day.
The health risks of decaffeinated coffee have been studied, with varying results. One variable is the type of decaffeination process used; while some involve the use of organic solvents which may leave residual traces, others rely on steam.
A study has shown that cafestol, a substance which is present in boiled coffee drinks, dramatically increases cholesterol levels, especially in women. Filtered coffee only contains trace amounts of cafestol.
I note that most of the studies point to an excessive (I imagine) consummption of coffee as a problem-- 4 or more cups a day. (I don't even drink 4 cups of WATER a day...)
There was also a study done by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, cited here that pointed toward detriment to "aortic stiffness and wave reflections."
I've personally noted a number of coworkers that literally can't function without their cuppa. For what it's worth, I stay away from most caffeinated sodas-- especially after reading Icarus' soda withdrawal stories.
:shrug:
Mormons don't believe that we'll be teetotallers forever; maybe in Heaven there'll be good coffee houses, too.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I guess in my Christian beliefs there are fewer "commands from God" that seem irrelevant and just exist to see if you are faithful enough.
I can't speak to Mormon theology, but in Jewish theology there are tons of commandments that make no sense to me. Maybe they are just there as a test of my faith. Or maybe there is some other reason that I don't know, and don't need to know. "Do it 'cause I said so", is enough of a reason when the guy doing the saying so is G'd. He may have his reasons and just didn't think he needed to spell them out for me.
I'm cool with that.
Wasn't the whole "testing the faith" thing the idea behind God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? But in the end, there were results that Abraham couldn't have predicted?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I've gotten plenty of stares from having cocoa at the local coffee shop or turning over my mug at a fancy dinner.
People STARE at that? That's bizarre. Are you sure they aren't staring because you are funny-looking? I wouldn't stare at someone drinking cocoa or refusing coffee at a diner. But if that person had two heads and a silver-green tinge to their skin, well, then I might stare.
That surprises me as well. I don't drink coffee because I don't like the taste and have only recently learned to like tea - with cream and lots of suger. I don't recall anyone ever noticing much less staring.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's no different from regular tea, except that it's cold.
Well, given that the original restriction was on "hot drinks, by which I mean coffee and tea," I think the fact that iced tea is cold is a pretty relevant distinction. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took a Jewish history class in college (taught by a non-Jewish prof) and he said that there is clear evidence that some elements (not all) of kosher were designed purely to seperate the Jewish people from their neighbors. This idea of creating a unifying law, a "national" identity is another reason for the dietary laws. I think that this is a fairly good reason even if the health is not a factor.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The argument that gets me, kq, is where you said back on the first page that no, hot chocolate was not considered okay by everyone, and you only drink it when it's cold and you need to warm up. I understand that it's a personal choice, and that you probably have reasons that are hard to articulate. But to say that, and then to say later in the thread that you only drink hot drinks for medicinal reasons, seems kinda off. Particularly when I've heard you brag about your hot chocolate recipe many times on this forum.
That is not what I said. I said that I only drink herbal teas for medicinal reasons, and should have said or when it is very cold and I need to warm up. I do make darned good hot chocolate. And I drink it about twice a year.
My husband drinks more hot chocolate than I do-- and less herbal tea. That's just the way he was raised. We were, at that point, discussing personal interpretations of the WoW, to my understanding.
It's gone way far away from that at this point.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although it may not have been what you meant, I think it is, actually, what you said, right here:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:pfresh85, what about spearmint leaf tea? How could anyone be opposed to that?
Because it's a hot drink. I only drink it for medicinal purposes.
I understand that you were replying to pfresh's question about tea, but those two sentences very much read to me that you're saying you only drink hot drinks for medicinal purposes.
Again, I'm not trying to "catch" you here or whatever, I don't care how you personally interpret the words of wisdom. I'm just trying to show why your statements on the first page looked inconsistant to me. Like you said, a lot has happened since then. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Apostle Paul in the Bible sometimes just gave advice, and did not insist that it be taken as a commandment, which would be sin to violate: "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." (1 Corinthians 7:6)
Sin is defined as lawlessness in 1 John 3:4. But the Ten Commandment Law does not say anything about diet. Intemperate eating or drinking may be construed to be a possible violation of the sixth commandment, that says, "Thou shalt not kill." It might even be construed that it violates the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," in the sense that polluting the body is adulterating the body.
The motivation for Christians to live healthfully is to show respect for the creation of God in which the Holy Spirit dwells--our bodies; to maximize our strength, energy, clarity of mind, and longevity--so we can better and more effectively serve God and our fellow man; and to bring ourselves into clearer physical, mental and spiritual focus in facing times of special challenge--all the more as we see the end of all things approaching, when a final conflict between good and evil will be waged, and God needs people who will be able to serve as faithful witnesses for Him during this time.
The Bible texts most commonly quoted are 1 Corinthians 6:19-20: "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
And also 1 Corinthians 3:16-17: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
Obviously, the second statement is a bit stronger, indicating that carelessness in regard to our stewardship of our physical body can lead to our destruction spiritually.
My church (Seventh-day Adventist) regards the dietary regulations of Leviticus 11 to be sound advice, which Christians should observe as a matter of good sense, in harmony with the above quoted statements in 1 Corinthians. Surely the Creator would know which foods are to be preferred and which to be avoided for human consumption. The idea that these regulations were something just made up to set the Jews apart, is contradicted by the fact that the distinction between clean and unclean animals was known clear back at the time of the Genesis Flood. God directed that clean animals be taken into Noah's ark by sevens, and unclean animals by twos:
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." (Genesis 7:2)
My church also is motivated to take Leviticus 11 to heart because Ellen G. White (whom most of us believe had the prophetic gift) told us that God wanted us to adopt these dietary restrictions because it would make us healthier to do so, and thus better able to serve in the role He intends for us to play as the present world is coming to its end. Ellen G. White also went beyond Leviticus 11, and recommended that the diet God originally prescribed for Adam and Eve in Eden--a vegetarian diet--is the ideal diet toward which we should strive. This is by no means regarded as commandment; less than half of SDAs are really vegetarians. But it is what the church officially advocates as part of its concept of "health reform."
I doubt this is really very far afield from what good Mormons practice. As I said before, my church sees a lot alike with Mormons in regard to health. And recent government-sponsored studies have shown unquestionably that there are definite health benefits from following such health practices--adding as much as 7-10 years to average life span. Link: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0511/feature1/index.html
The study of SDAs was especially relevant, because it compared SDA church members who are vegetarians to SDAs who are not, thus cancelling out all other factors (such as the fact that all SDAs refuse to use tobacco and alcoholic beverages, and social classes, etc.) The original study actually showed that SDAs who are vegetarians, on average live seven years longer than SDAs who are not, and SDAs who are vegans (complete vegetarians who do not even use eggs or milk or any dairy products) on average live 12 years longer than SDAs who eat meat.
God does not require anyone to be a vegetarian. But He wishes for us to be blessed with life, and have it more abundantly (see John 10:10), so He has "clued us in," if we are willing to take advantage of it.
[ March 27, 2006, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh boy. I think Lisa may be in here to clear up some 10 commandment errors in translation here.
From what I remember, she mentioned, "Thou shall not kill" is actually "Thou shall not murder a human being," if translated better. Also something about "Thou shall not steal" referring to stealing humans/kidnapping. I don't know as much about Judaism as I would like (although I'm learning more all the time from rivka, tante, and lisa) but are the so-called 10 commandments actually considered seperate from the rest of the rules? I thought it was all just sort of "The Law."
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's a key component of faith, following without an explanation of why you should. After all, if you're doing it because it makes sense then you don't really need God in the equation; you'd have done it on your own.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
Hey, if it were anyone else bossing me around without a good reason, I'd balk. But I make a special exception when the bossing around is coming from G'd. He's entitled.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand that you were replying to pfresh's question about tea, but those two sentences very much read to me that you're saying you only drink hot drinks for medicinal purposes.
Well, obviously, I should have worded it more clearly. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, if you believe that God is in fact the Creator of the Universe, and yet that He has made a great Self-sacrifice for all mankind, so that you personally can have a way out and be brought into the heavenly kingdom where everything is the way it should be, you might feel a sense of awe and gratitude that would lead you to do what He says. Not only do we have confidence that God really intends the very best for us, we also believe that God is supremely wise, so He really knows what is best.
When we reach Heaven, and are allowed to peruse at our leisure all the records of Heaven, and see everything that was going on, we will agree then that God led us in exactly the way we would have chosen ourselves to be led.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between having confidence and in God and having confidence in those that interpret God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When we reach Heaven, and are allowed to peruse at our leisure all the records of Heaven, and see everything that was going on, we will agree then that God led us in exactly the way we would have chosen ourselves to be led.
I have to confess that I have this hysterical mental image of somebody getting to peruse the records of Heaven at his leisure and, after auditing the books, finding at least a dozen things that could have been done better. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan, if you believe that God is in fact the Creator of the Universe, and yet that He has made a great Self-sacrifice for all mankind, so that you personally can have a way out and be brought into the heavenly kingdom where everything is the way it should be, you might feel a sense of awe and gratitude that would lead you to do what He says. Not only do we have confidence that God really intends the very best for us, we also believe that God is supremely wise, so He really knows what is best.
I really don't understand this way of thinking. I'm trying to put into words my objection to it, but I'm having a hard time coming up with something. The God of the Bible just feels wrong to me. I don't think a god deserves to be worshipped just because it is a god.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
RRR, I can try to explain how I feel about it. I'm very much in favor of questioning authority and thinking for myself, however, I learned to be that way from interacting with human authorities. They are quite often not very wise, and usually don't have our best interests at heart. Their rules are all too quick to make their own lives easier, and not meant for our good.
God is different, though. Not only is he vastly wiser than us, and enormously advanced spiritually, mentally, physically, intellectually, and every-other-ly above us, but he loves us totally, far more than we love ourselves. He has our best interests at heart way more than we do our own, even. I know this because I've put it to the test again and again. When I do what God asks, I always come out the winner, even when I didn't think I would up front. Even when I was sure it would be a great sacrifice.
Since I know this now, the only thing I really have to worry about is learning how to discern what is actually God's will for me from my misunderstandings, limitations, etc. Then, of course, I also have to conquer the natural me who still doesn't want to do what God says, even when I know he's right and I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just too lazy or craven and weak or something, for instance. I have to marshall my will and energy to actually put things into practice that I know would be good.
But really to understand you have to do it. You have to feel that strength flowing through you, the power of it, and the joy. You can try to understand up front, but really it takes actually trying. Maybe even trying and failing a few times. But relying on God's strength to help you suceed. And then you'll know.
I hope that helps explain, in some little way. Realize that it's a joyful thing, not a negative restrictive thing. It's like letting go of a burden, when you just follow God's will, regardless of anything. It's a feeling like flying. There's no chafing or constraint; I do it because it's fun and a privilege.
Obeying human authories, on the other hand, can sometimes make you feel dragged down and burdened past your ability to carry the load.
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matt 11:28-29)
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I admit my statement you quoted was unintentionally false. I should have said what you said.
I figured it was unintentional. I just thought I should clarify -- there's been enough confusion in this thread, neh?
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:2. One who is bedridden or noticeably not functioning due to pain or illness may take any tablet or bitter-tasting medicine.
I don't know that 'bad headache' falls in this category, unless we're using the word 'bad' very differently. I guess I'm curious about where you draw the line. (the royal you, not you-rivka).
Perhaps you have never had a headache bad enough that it noticeably impaired your ability to function, but I have been so blessed. Defining choleh she'ein bo sakanah (which is the category #2 is referring to) -- literally, a person who is ill but whose health/life is not in danger -- is somewhat debatable. The way I learned to determine whether one falls into the category is as follows: if not taking the medication would mean you would feel the need to go to bed (whether or not that is currently possible), you qualify. I have had all too many headaches where even with the medication, I have to lie down until it kicks in.
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I compared it with keeping Kosher because that can be explained scripturally . . .
Could you please elaborate on this point?
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I took a Jewish history class in college (taught by a non-Jewish prof) and he said that there is clear evidence that some elements (not all) of kosher were designed purely to separate the Jewish people from their neighbors. This idea of creating a unifying law, a "national" identity is another reason for the dietary laws. I think that this is a fairly good reason even if the health is not a factor.
No question that this is a big benefit. Rates of intermarriage are MUCH higher among those groups of Jews who do not keep kosher.
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
We're even, because I do not understand why anyone would not. And He is not a god; He is the God. Creator of all, omniscient and omnipotent.
Doing what He tells us is Right. And on good days, I feel that rightness. (On bad days, nothing feels right, but I hang on and hope for a good day -- and if I do what I know to be right, one usually comes sooner than later.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with rivka - I don't understand why someone wouldn't if they believed in Deity. He is God. As such, getting him P.O.ed is going to make your Eternity an endless misery. If you believe in Him than what He commands better be obeyed for your own good, if you care about your soul in any way. Believers follow God for two reasons simaltaniously. They Love Him and they Fear Him.
That isn't to say you aren't free to both believe and not do what He says. Plenty of people (too many I think) do this constantly. But, you better be prepared for the consiquences. In the end, those who deliberately rebel against God almost always end up athiest.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me it's not (at least not primarily) a question of "getting Him P.O.ed"; rather it's a question of Him knowing what is best for me.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, how is Starbucks doing in Utah these days?
They recently built one in American Fork which is the second one in the state, IIRC.
quote:Well, given that the original restriction was on "hot drinks, by which I mean coffee and tea," I think the fact that iced tea is cold is a pretty relevant distinction.
I disagree. And since you don't believe in any of it, I'm at a loss to see why you care.
quote:I don't understand why someone would do something just because God said so without any other reason being given.
I think the reason is sometimes "I know that God understands what I do not, and I know he loves me, so if he tells me to do something, I know it's what's best for me."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I was just referring to the Bible calling some animals clean and some unclean.
I am not saying any of these beliefs are less relevant and I am not trying to insult anyone. I am just want to clarify and understand more than my limited experience.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, except "clean" and "unclean" are dreadful mistranslations of tahor and lo tahor. If the meaning of those words in English is what you are basing your understanding of the reasoning upon, I finally understand where you are coming from . . . and am even more convinced that you are wrong.
Sorry if that sounds harsh; I'm not coming up with a better way to put it. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, how is Starbucks doing in Utah these days?
They recently built one in American Fork which is the second one in the state, IIRC.
Second one in Utah County (the first one being in the Barnes & Noble in Orem), possibly, but not second in the state. There are a couple dozen in Salt Lake County.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the "doing something just 'cause God says so," seems to me that God is saying, "Try this out. If you follow it, I will bless you. See if I don't." He certainly said that about tithing in Malachi 3.
I have always loved the parent-child metaphor for God-human relations. There are times when I cannot adequately explain to my child why they should or should not do something. As they gain experience and maturity, they eventually will understand. But that takes time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it just meant that God created some animals ok for human consumption and some are not ok; not in the actual sense of needing soap and water. Many people who are trying to explain things in this thread are being a little harsh in my opinion actually. I appreciate the clarification in my misinterpretations since I am just trying to understand beliefs that are different from mine but I get the impression that some people are taking offense to my (and other people's) questions and misunderstandings.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not offended; I do think your interpretation is based on a misunderstanding. Non-kosher animals are entirely edible, nor is there any reason (IMO) for non-Jews to avoid eating them. (Well, ok, maybe cholesterol, but that's true of many kosher animals as well. )
I apologize that I seem to have offended you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is just you or the other posters in this thread. I think I am just easily offended lately and I am just frustrated at not understanding. But thanks for the apology Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Anne Kate, rivka, Porter, and Beverly. Your posts have helped me to understand that a bit better.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. And since you don't believe in any of it, I'm at a loss to see why you care.
I don't care particularly deeply. But it seems to me that it's an issue of defined sets. If I said "I dislike large dogs, specifically Great Danes and collies," and you brought me a tiny little Great Dane, the odds will still be 50/50 that I might like it -- because the initial criteria for my dislike was the largeness. I AM very curious as to how and why the "iced tea" part of the "coffee and tea" restriction was added, and whether this would apply to iced tea that was never actually brewed (like Crystal Light).
quote:Well Tom, then you will get to travel back in time and fix them.
Incidentally, C.S. Lewis talked about how Christ's atonement would work so that God would 'forget all our sins and remember them no more.'
He stated that (and I apologize, I can't find a link for the actual text) when a person who falls within the power of Christ's atonement is judged, Christ's sacrifice will work backwards in time, and everything that was sin will be changed into an act of righteousness.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that almost all restrictions on diet and behavior in modern religions are for this purpose.
The Word of Wisdom became more strict right around the time that polygamy was banned. I don't think it is coincidence - I think that in both cases some, if not most, of the reason for both commandments was to make us a "peculiar" people and set us apart.
---
Anecdotal: Katie's practice: No coffee, no tea (including herbal), no drugs, no tobacco, wary about Atkins. Fine with caffeinated sodas as long as it isn't an addiction.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get religious dietary prohibitions. Of course God knows what's best for us, but I just can't conceive of a food being so bad for us that God has to give us a specific rule not to eat it.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: I don't get religious dietary prohibitions. Of course God knows what's best for us, but I just can't conceive of a food being so bad for us that God has to give us a specific rule not to eat it.
I can conceive of lots of foods being so bad that we shouldn't eat them, and we might not know better unless God said so.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: As for the "doing something just 'cause God says so," seems to me that God is saying, "Try this out. If you follow it, I will bless you. See if I don't."
Yes. I believe that one of the reasons God asks for our obedience is that it is a means to build trust and deepen our relationship with Him. When we obey "just because God said so," we are blessed. Our obedience then becomes something more freely and joyfully given, because we have learned to trust God's laws.
There is an understanding that goes deeper than reason. It only comes from application of a principle; having lived a law for a lifetime, we understand it in our very marrow.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chocolate doesn't have cafienne in it. It's a slightly different chemical that does almost the same thing metabolically.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Note that last sentence. Caffeine may be added to some chocolate products.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is, in fact, in many commercial chocolate products (although in small amounts). Moreover, theobromine and caffeine are very closely related. (Caffeine has three methyl groups; theobromine has hydrogens in the equivalent three spots.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia says, "Chocolate also contains caffeine in significant amounts, though less than tea or coffee, according to careful scientific studies and despite a few websites which claim otherwise. Some chocolate products contain synthetic caffeine as an additive," but then, of course, it doesn't provide a source. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
there better be...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Defining choleh she'ein bo sakanah (which is the category #2 is referring to) -- literally, a person who is ill but whose health/life is not in danger -- is somewhat debatable. The way I learned to determine whether one falls into the category is as follows: if not taking the medication would mean you would feel the need to go to bed (whether or not that is currently possible), you qualify. I have had all too many headaches where even with the medication, I have to lie down until it kicks in. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
