is being overweight a sin?

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Huh Gator?  Was this for me?

If so, I should have clarified my, "yikes this went south quick" comment. I just jumped on the thread to see what was cooking, and presto-chango, I was looking at "R-rated stuff".

 Not at all my friend. Just making sure everyone knew where I stood. 

[LeSellers]

21 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think both you and Eowyn are correct. it IS strange to argue "in favor" of alcohol use on an LDS website-but we can't let our morals make us believe things that aren't based in fact. So I sort of agree with both you. 

So, what is it that anyone has said that isn't "based in fact"?

Aside, I mean, from Maureen's mythical "alcohol has medical benefits" trope?

Lehi

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

So, what is it that anyone has said that isn't "based in fact"?

 

 It's strictly a "if the shoe fits" kind of statement. 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 It's strictly a "if the shoe fits" kind of statement. 

It sounded more accusatory than advisory.

Lehi

Edited March 10, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

It sounded more accusatory than advisory.

Lehi

It wasn't. 

[Guest]

My point, Maureen, is that we don't abstain from alcohol because of how it may or may not be good for us. We do so because we believe God has commanded it. That's why, as I've said, I find it disrespectful to go to a bunch of LDS people and argue against their beliefs because you don't happen to believe the same. It's not about whether you agree with the practicalities, it's about showing respect for a set of beliefs. 

[Vort]

5 hours ago, David13 said:

I agree with that Vort.  I meant anyone who is not a Latter day Saint.

I actually agree with you, but Maureen's little snit puts me in no frame of mind to find reasons to support alcohol usage.

Alcohol is a poison. I weigh over 200 pounds, yet if I were to drink just a pint of alcohol -- two cups -- I would probably die. The fact that people can survive lesser amounts of alcohol does not negate its toxicity.

Consider the enormous social toll of alcohol -- the children beaten and parentless, the people murdered by drunk drivers, the lives shattered from addiction, the neglect, the broken homes, the fights, the rapes, the wasted lives. Then compare it with statistical suggestions that moderate (= little) use of red wine seems to contribute to a small decrease in heart disease -- no mechanism proposed or even suggested, just a small statistical correlation.

Therefore, drinking alcohol really isn't that bad?

Barf.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Vort

[Maureen]

22 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

My point, Maureen, is that we don't abstain from alcohol because of how it may or may not be good for us. We do so because we believe God has commanded it. That's why, as I've said, I find it disrespectful to go to a bunch of LDS people and argue against their beliefs because you don't happen to believe the same. It's not about whether you agree with the practicalities, it's about showing respect for a set of beliefs. 

I've never said you should NOT abstain from alcohol consumption. I've never said that you should NOT believe that God has told you to abstain. I've just provided my opinion on why I think some people have the wrong idea about alcohol consumption.

M.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Maureen said:

You mean as opposed to someone's weekly heterosexual orgies? You assume that if someone is gay they are having an orgy instead of being in a monogamous relationship?

This has nothing to do with me being Protestant (Lutheran) but my own personal feelings and beliefs, and I believe that even gays can be in a monogamous relationship and have a good relationship with God.

M. 

Now you seem to be going into the zone of "I'm going to TRY to make the topic about anything other than the question at hand just so I can make my point."

I did not mean or assume or anything else you said in my previous post.  I meant what I said.  And I did not say anything you said.  So, why didn't you address what I asked?

I was trying to be polite to you.  I was even on your side at the beginning.  But it is becoming increasingly evident that you're not interested in reasonable discourse.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

On 3/7/2016 at 1:37 PM, Maureen said:

You'd be surprised by the health benefits alcohol can provided.

I don't know what your motivation here is.  But you seem to be deliberately missing the point of most of the posts and skirting around any point that would weaken your argument.  Example: Personally, I'm with Lehi about being drunk.  I've NEVER known anyone who drinks moderately who has NEVER gotten drunk.  I'm finding it difficult to believe you're not hyperbolizing when you make the claim yourself.

The quote above is very ignorant, arrogant, close-minded, and hypocritical.

Are you so ignorant as to believe it is actually "alcohol" that provides ALL or even most of the health benefits you allude to and not a completely different constituent within the beverage (which, BTW, is not contained in most alcoholic beverages)?  Alcohol itself, I understand is not cut and dry (no pun intended).  But you're not even admitting it's mostly something else.
Are you so arrogant that you honestly believe that most Mormons are ignorant of the health findings of the past 20 years?  
Are you so close-minded that you believe Mormons will say anything and everything to justify complete temperance?
Are you so hypocritical that you are oblivious to how you committed the very error that this statement implies of Mormons?

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Guest

[David13]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

I actually agree with you, but Maureen's little snit puts me in no frame of mind to find reasons to support alcohol usage.

Alcohol is a poison. I weigh over 200 pounds, yet if I were to drink just a pint of alcohol -- two cups -- I would probably die. The fact that people can survive lesser amounts of alcohol does not negate its toxicity.

Consider the enormous social toll of alcohol -- the children beaten and parentless, the people murdered by drunk drivers, the lives shattered from addiction, the neglect, the broken homes, the fights, the rapes, the wasted lives. Then compare it with statistical suggestions that moderate (= little) use of red wine seems to contribute to a small decrease in heart disease -- no mechanism proposed or even suggested, just a small statistical correlation.

Therefore, drinking alcohol really isn't that bad?

Barf.

I think it's important to separate the chafe from the wheat.  There are moderate social drinkers out there who have NONE of the laundry list of ills caused by alcohol.

What's your solution?  Ban or prohibit alcohol? 

I agree with you about the ills.  There are many who should never drink.  But there are others who have no problem with it.

Now, my position?  You know what it is.  I stated it several times there.  I don't drink.

dc

[David13]

11 hours ago, Eowyn said:

My point, Maureen, is that we don't abstain from alcohol because of how it may or may not be good for us. We do so because we believe God has commanded it. That's why, as I've said, I find it disrespectful to go to a bunch of LDS people and argue against their beliefs because you don't happen to believe the same. It's not about whether you agree with the practicalities, it's about showing respect for a set of beliefs. 

That may be the real issue Eowyn.  I do not believe Maureen is "arguing against beliefs". 

I think you have found it.  We abstain from alcohol not because we perceive it as some great evil.  But because God commanded it.  It may or may not be a great evil for others, but that's up to them based on THEIR beliefs.

Of course, it will make it much easier to abstain from alcohol if a person does perceive it to be a great evil.  The basis is not the evil, but the commandment.

As to non Mormons, alcohol may or may not be a great evil.  It's clear Maureen recognizes that.

dc

 

[David13]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 But it is becoming increasingly evident that you're not interested in reasonable discourse.

I disagree, Carbie.

I think Maureen just stated her opinion and got a lot of flak for it.

dc

[David13]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know what your motivation here is.  But you seem to be deliberately missing the point of most of the posts and skirting around any point that would weaken your argument.  Example: Personally, I'm with Lehi about being drunk.  I've NEVER known anyone who drinks moderately who has NEVER gotten drunk.  I'm finding it difficult to believe you're not hyperbolizing when you make the claim yourself.

The quote above is very ignorant, arrogant, close-minded, and hypocritical.

Are you so ignorant as to believe it is actually "alcohol" that provides ALL or even most of the health benefits you allude to and not a completely different constituent within the beverage (which, BTW, is not contained in most alcoholic beverages)?  Alcohol itself, I understand is not cut and dry (no pun intended).  But you're not even admitting it's mostly something else.
Are you so arrogant that you honestly believe that most Mormons are ignorant of the health findings of the past 20 years?  
Are you so close-minded that you believe Mormons will say anything and everything to justify complete temperance?
Are you so hypocritical that you are oblivious to how you committed the very error that this statement implies of Mormons?

 

Do you think that sounds like "reasonable discourse"?

dc

[Guest]

When she stated her opinion, I was on her side.  I even agreed with her.  Then the discourse went to "I'm not going to answer the question.  I'm going to accuse you of something that you never said."  That was what I was referring to when I said "increasingly evident".  But it may simply be that she was taking her defensive position against others and projecting it onto me.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, David13 said:

Do you think that sounds like "reasonable discourse"?

dc

She just made stuff up about my post and completely ignoring what I said.  I was at least addressing her words.  So, yes.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

She just made stuff up about my post and completely ignoring what I said.  I was at least addressing her words.  So, yes.

I am not referring to just you, Carb. Just some thoughts.

Let's try to remember that words can be taken out of context here, and in the middle of a disagreement we all want to think the "worst" of those who disagree with us. I totally include myself in this. In the heat of the moment I'd like to think I'm so brilliant, so concise and fair that no one could ever misinterpret me.  Must be all on them, of course-when it isn't. It's on both parties.  

I'm sure Maureen didn't do anything intentional. 
 

[David13]

I think the whole thing has got way out of line and this is a good place to end it.

dc

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, David13 said:

I think the whole thing has got way out of line and this is a good place to end it.

dc

I blame you David. With your constant foul mouth, name calling and generally unpleasant attitude. You even took a swing at me! 

(kidding, kidding!) 

[Maureen]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know what your motivation here is.  But you seem to be deliberately missing the point of most of the posts and skirting around any point that would weaken your argument.  Example: Personally, I'm with Lehi about being drunk.  I've NEVER known anyone who drinks moderately who has NEVER gotten drunk.  I'm finding it difficult to believe you're not hyperbolizing when you make the claim yourself.

The quote above is very ignorant, arrogant, close-minded, and hypocritical.

Are you so ignorant as to believe it is actually "alcohol" that provides ALL or even most of the health benefits you allude to and not a completely different constituent within the beverage (which, BTW, is not contained in most alcoholic beverages)?  Alcohol itself, I understand is not cut and dry (no pun intended).  But you're not even admitting it's mostly something else.
Are you so arrogant that you honestly believe that most Mormons are ignorant of the health findings of the past 20 years?  
Are you so close-minded that you believe Mormons will say anything and everything to justify complete temperance?
Are you so hypocritical that you are oblivious to how you committed the very error that this statement implies of Mormons?

 

Quote

My quote: You'd be surprised by the health benefits alcohol can provided.

Talk about hyperbolic! You think that me stating that alcohol can have health benefits if ignorant, arrogant, close-minded and hypocritical? How?

Research can easily be found to show this is true. And you may never have met someone who is a moderate drinker but that doesn't mean they do not exist. I am a moderate drinker. I know several people who are moderate drinkers. I'm surprised at your reaction to such a straight forward simple statement.

M.

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

When she stated her opinion, I was on her side.  I even agreed with her.  Then the discourse went to "I'm not going to answer the question.  I'm going to accuse you of something that you never said."  That was what I was referring to when I said "increasingly evident".  But it may simply be that she was taking her defensive position against others and projecting it onto me.

Carb, what question did I not answer and what did I accuse you of saying that you never said?

M.

[Guest Godless]

19 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I do not recall the source, nor the numbers, but I read some fifteen years ago, that the first drink impairs judgment, and that by the third or fourth, the person is totally incapable of making valid, rational choices.

Lehi

Your source is highly questionable. To a highly inexperienced drinker, one drink may have a small effect on the mental capacities. However, anyone who drinks on even a semi-regular basis (whether they do so moderately or excessively) should have the tolerance to handle one drink without having judgement impaired. And while some people may become legally intoxicated (a threshold that is set pretty low, and rightfully so) after 3-4 drinks, there are plenty who do not. I'm not going to sit here and justify driving while impaired, but to say that people (in general) are "totally incapable of making valid, rational choices" after a few drinks is a gross over-exaggeration. 

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Godless said:

Your source is highly questionable. 

In fairness, since most LDS don't have personal experience drinking, they don't know what a reliable source would be, I think.

That's not an insult, I don't know anything about breeding mules, so I wouldn't know where to look either. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

23 hours ago, Maureen said:

JAG, I'm not saying that alcohol abuse doesn't exist, but you seem to think that no person is able to be disciplined in their consumption of alcohol. I'm telling you that people can be moderate drinkers, whether you believe it or not.

Hi Maureen -

I realize that there are a lot of disparate voices here that aren't 100% on the same page about everything--and perhaps in past exchanges between the two of us, I have given you reason to suspect my motives in this particular interchange.  But, might I respectfully invite you to focus on what I have actually written in this thread?  My point is that any consumption of alcohol will impair one's intellectual/emotional/moral faculties to some degree.  If someone can limit that impairment through experience, self-discipline, etc--that's great; but where I take issue is with the suggestion that consuming alcohol,within a certain threshold, doesn't create any impairment at all. 

Quote

You are of the opinion that being a moderate alcohol drinker (since you are of the opinion that moderate drinkers don't exist) is worse than gluttony. I disagree with that.

I have no problem with the concept that one can be a "moderate" drinker in the sense that one can drink responsibly and still function in most day-to-day activities (though, I would hasten to assert, such a person would not be functioning "optimally" so long as there was any measurable amount of alcohol in their bloodstream). 

That said, I don't think God's much of a fan of the process or the thought patterns that underlie figuring out just how much is too much. 

And given that it's relatively easy to overindulge in something we need daily, whereas it takes some degree of premeditation to overindulge (or even just plain indulge) in something we don't need at all--yeah, I do think that even moderate or even light drinking is (generally speaking) probably more of an issue than gluttony.  Your mileage, of course, may--and probably does--vary. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, Godless said:

Your source is highly questionable. … to say that people (in general) are "totally incapable of making valid, rational choices" after a few drinks is a gross over-exaggeration. 

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

In fairness, since most LDS don't have personal experience drinking, they don't know what a reliable source would be, I think.

Well, how about this?

One to two drinks of alcohol impair mental and physical abilities; mental processes such as restraint, awareness, concentration and judgment are affected, reaction time slowed, and an inability to perform complicated tasks.
(“The Effects of Alcohol and Other Drugs,” Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Irvine, CA, 1991)

Impairment in performance begins at below 0.02% BAC (1 to 1-1/2 drinks can result in this level).
(NIAAA - Alcohol Problems and Aging: 1998 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.)

Any blood alcohol level, even a BAC of 0.02%, the result of just one drink, increases the risk of a crash. Alcohol impairs nearly every aspect of the brain’s ability to process information, as well as the eye’s ability to focus and react to light.
(University of California, Berkeley, Wellness Letter, Jan. 1998

Alcohol ingested in any quantity reduces cardiac output and destroys a vital enzyme necessary for muscle contraction.
(Guidelines to Safe Drinking, Nicholas Pace, M.D., an expert on the effects of alcohol, 1984)

 

When you consume alcohol, the body immediately begins to break it down. In the process, breakdown products called ethyl esters speed the movement of positively charged potassium ions from brain cells through the outer membranes, creating a negative charge within the cell. This impairs calcium channels - a bad thing since the brain cells rely on calcium to communicate with other cells throughout the body. When calcium concentrations decrease, so does brain cell communication, resulting in the behaviors we recognize as intoxication. It slurs speech, decreases your cognitive ability, and even relaxes inhibitions by breaking down inhibitory pathways, which then leads to inappropriate behavior.
(Journal of Biological Chemistry, Dec. 20, 1996)

At low doses the effects of alcohol may include alterations in mood, cognition, anxiety level, and motor performance. It may also impair performance several hours after the blood alcohol level has gone down. Even slightly elevated levels result in more fatal accidents, and the majority of individuals who experience a problem related to alcohol use are light and moderate drinkers.
(Department of Health and Human Services in their reports to Congress 1990 and 1993)

The activity of a particular subtype of a glutamate receptor, called the NMDA receptor, known to be critical for the memory deficits that people experience after drinking, is very powerfully inhibited by alcohol - even in very low doses. While that drink will promote relaxation it will compromise learning and memory. Studies indicate that certain parts of the brain are more vulnerable to the damage done by alcohol, such as the cortex, which endows us with consciousness and controls most of our mental functions.
(Buzzed, Cynthia Kuhn, 1998)

Just a half-a-glass of wine almost doubles the level of estrogen in women on ERT.
("Estrogen and Alcohol Don't Mix,” Optimum Wellness newsletter, Winter 1997)

The effect of just one alcoholic drink on a person who is sleep deprived would be the same as six drinks by a person who has had enough sleep, says Dr. James Maas, professor at Cornell University and internationally recognized as an expert on the psychophysiology on sleep.
(Let’s Live magazine, Sep. 1992)

A February 1999 study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found that, compared with juice or water, having one alcoholic drink before a meal led to eating 200 extra calories, on top of the extra calories in the drink itself. Subjects ate faster, took longer to feel full, and continued eating even after they were no longer hungry.
("Drink Less, Eat Less", Prevention magazine, Jan. 2001)

Researchers found that some alcohol consumption among the elderly may lessen age-related brain injuries, such as silent stroke (a stroke in which the effects are too subtle to be noticed when they occurred) and white matter disease, but that any level of alcohol intake may shrink brain matter. Every drink of alcohol is associated with greater brain shrinkage (atrophy).
("Stroke," Journal of the American Heart Association, www.docguide.com - Dec. 2001)

Even a small amount of alcohol can affect your balance and reflexes.
(National Institute on Aging - 2003)

Even one beer (or one drink) can slow your reactions and confuse your thinking. This means anything that requires concentration and coordination - like driving - is more dangerous when you’ve had a drink. Drinking is a problem if it interferes with how you think or feel.
(familydoctor.org - May 2003)

“In general, it looks like the less alcohol we drink, the better off we are,” says Don Nelson, Pharm. D., Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Cell Biophysics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, a researcher of the biological effects of alcohol. “In any quantity, alcohol kills cells in every organ in the body.”
(“Why Drinking and Living Longer Don't Mix.” Longevity magazine, Jan. 1994)

My source appears to be better than you imagine.

Lehi

Edited March 11, 2016 by LeSellers