is being overweight a sin?

[Maureen]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...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...

I doubt it's that black and white. Alcohol effects everyone differently depending on factors like weight, food intake, time duration, etc. Someone who weighs more will have a different effect than someone who weighs less. Alcohol works differently on a full stomach than an empty one. Drinking a 5 oz glass of wine in 1 hour will effect someone differently than drinking it in 20 minutes. If any amount of alcohol can cause impairment, then do you really think those who take communion in Catholic and some Protestant churches are impaired? Children as young as 7 or 8 can take communion in Catholic churches and I had my first communion when I was 13. I assure you that that small amount of wine will not impair anyone.

M. 

[Maureen]

Lehi, your sources are from 12 to 32 years old. Would you be able to find the same information on sources from 10 years ago or sooner?

M.

[LeSellers]

33 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Lehi, your sources are from 12 to 32 years old. Would you be able to find the same information on sources from 10 years ago or sooner?

I'm certain I could, but I won't bother: you've shown a singular inability to accept that it is not the alcohol, it's the other compounds in the poisonous drinks that makes all the difference in health.

Alcohol is a poison. It has been a poison since the first fruit fermented. Grape skins and seeds have a variety of nutrients, and the yeast p**s that results from fermentation may (but only may) make that slightly more available via solubility, but it is not the alcohol that confers any of the benefits. Alcohol is a poison. Alcohol is a poison. Alcohol is a poison.

It kills cells in every organ of the body virtually the minute one drinks it. It impairs reason, judgment, and coordination from the first sip.

There is no, there is no benefit from alcohol, it's the other compounds in the drink that give any benefits. The alcohol is a poison. The other compounds are available from the original fruit/grain or other sources, and have no side effects like killing cells in every organ of the body.

Lehi

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

Lehi, your sources are from 12 to 32 years old. Would you be able to find the same information on sources from 10 years ago or sooner?

Because we have learned a great deal about the healthful effects of alcohol in the last decade.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

I doubt it's that black and white.

Give it up, JAG. Maureen doesn't care if you have her feet to the fire, and she doesn't care how polite you are. She absolutely will not respond to reasoned conversation. It makes no difference that your point is transparently obvious; she will gainsay.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Maureen said:

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.

@David13

Here's a perfect example of what I was saying. 

• I flat out explained what I meant by those adjectives (she even quoted it) and then she asks what I mean by those descriptors.  Notice that she never even addressed the questions/descriptions I gave.  She just questioned the adjectives.
• I agree with the benefits of the other constituents (which she will specifically ignore) and she ignores both the agreement and the point about other constituents. and she goes back to alcohol again.
• I only had one question in the post prior and she asks what question she didn't address.
• Her simple words "you'd be surprised" speaks volumes.  It says that she knows more than we do.  It says that Mormons are so narrow-minded that they don't know of some popular announcements that pretty much everyone knows about.  It says that the benefits are SO great that there should never be any more discussion about alcohol being bad for you.  It says that the alcohol is the good thing, not the other constituents...
• You can put all the evidence in front of her and ask her anywhere from one to 100 questions.  And she will pick and choose which questions will forward her narrative and ignore the ones she cannot answer without hurting her narrative.
• All of her statements are generalities that have a small grain of truth that she wishes to expand to the end-all and be-all argument, while ignoring all the other realities because it doesn't fit her narrative.

This is not reasoned discourse.  It is a practiced propaganda.

Here's another anecdote.  Yesterday I had lunch with a bunch of guys from work.  It was a Japanese restaurant.  They had sake.  I asked who there wanted mine.  They were surprised because I was Asian, they assumed I liked sake.  I told them I didn't drink.  Again surprise.

I asked them if anyone they knew was a moderate drinker.  They all were.

I asked if someone told them that they only drank moderately and NEVER got actually drunk.  Answers were:

• What would be the point?
• Yeah, that is someone who's being dishonest, right there.
• I'd have to see it to believe it.
• I've never met anyone like that.
• Never, even once?  I doubt that.

Only one person said, well it depends on what they drink.  "Only wine with their dinner" came up.  And that began a debate whether such a person would or could exist.  It did not reach a final conclusion.

So, whether some people NEVER get drunk or not, it is clearly the exception and not the rule.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Guest

[estradling75]

10 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I'm certain I could, but I won't bother: you've shown a singular inability to accept that it is not the alcohol, it's the other compounds in the poisonous drinks that makes all the difference in health.

Alcohol is a poison. It has been a poison since the first fruit fermented. Grape skins and seeds have a variety of nutrients, and the yeast p**s that results from fermentation may (but only may) make that slightly more available via solubility, but it is not the alcohol that confers any of the benefits. Alcohol is a poison. Alcohol is a poison. Alcohol is a poison.

It kills cells in every organ of the body virtually the minute one drinks it. It impairs reason, judgment, and coordination from the first sip.

There is no, there is no benefit from alcohol, it's the other compounds in the drink that give any benefits. The alcohol is a poison. The other compounds are available from the original fruit/grain or other sources, and have no side effects like killing cells in every organ of the body.

Lehi

 

This would be an example of the overzealous I was talking about.

Apply Lehi's claim to the Miracle Christ did converting water to wine.  According to Lehi's statement Christ converted water to Poison.  Does that sound like something Christ would do?  If it was a matter of the water not being safe enough... well I have a hard time believing that it is some how harder for God to clean water then it is to change it to wine.

 

Why is it so hard to accept and understand  that we don't partake of alcohol because God commanded us not to to; and leave it at that without trying to make further hedges and justification around it?  For everyone it is their privilege and right (agency) to accept and to follow God or not as they wish

 

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

This would be an example of the overzealous I was talking about.

Is there anything in what I said that was false?

Alcohol is a poison. There is no escaping that fact.

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

According to Lehi's statement Christ converted water to Poison.  Does that sound like something Christ would do?  If it was a matter of the water not being safe enough... well I have a hard time believing that it is some how harder for God to clean water then it is to change it to wine.

This has little to do with  my proposition.

The people in His day would not have drunk it had it been water. And, there is no reason to assume that Jesus knew anything temporarily that was not accepted in His day. He may not have known what we do, and it seems He did not. There are several cases in the biblical scripture where He did not apply any superior knowledge of the physical world to His environment.

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Why is it so hard to accept and understand  that we don't partake of alcohol because God commanded us not to to; and leave it at that without trying to make further hedges and justification around it?  For everyone it is their privilege and right (agency) to accept and to follow God or not as they wish

Please do not forget that I am the most consistent libertarian here: I do not give the first flyin' flip whether Maureen or anyone else poisons himself on purpose. But it is important that facts have their say.

I don't even care if anyone else, LDS or not, gets drunk, has a glass of wine, or even smokes crack cocaine, as long as his actions cannot reasonably affect me or my family. Their choices, their consequences. But it is factually incorrect to claim that alcohol itself has medical benefits (aside from dissolving other compounds, possibly making them more effective).

Lehi

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

This has little to do with  my proposition.

The people in His day would not have drunk it had it been water. And, there is no reason to assume that Jesus knew anything temporarily that was not accepted in His day. He may not have known what we do, and it seems He did not. There are several cases in the biblical scripture where He did not apply any superior knowledge of the physical world to His environment.

 

So you stand by the claim that Christ was a poisoner?

Or the Father if you wish to make the claim Christ at that time didn't have the necessary understanding

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by estradling75

[omegaseamaster75]

11 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

I don't even care if anyone else, LDS or not, gets drunk, has a glass of wine, or even smokes crack cocaine, as long as his actions cannot reasonably affect me or my family. Their choices, their consequences. But it is factually incorrect to claim that alcohol itself has medical benefits (aside from dissolving other compounds, possibly making them more effective).

Lehi

SO you think that it is factually incorrect to claim that Alcohol has medical benefits? CFR me your evidence that this is true

[LeSellers]

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

SO you think that it is factually incorrect to claim that Alcohol has medical benefits? CFR me your evidence that this is true

I've already posted it.

Lehi

[omegaseamaster75]

No you have posted that it impairs individuals with as little as one drink. I disagree.

 Show me where it says there are no medical benefits.

Six reasons to drink a glass of wine a day: http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20410287,00.html

[unixknight]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

SO you think that it is factually incorrect to claim that Alcohol has medical benefits? CFR me your evidence that this is true

 

What's CFR mean?

[LeSellers]

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

SO you think that it is factually incorrect to claim that Alcohol has medical benefits? CFR me your evidence that this is true

I've already posted it.

Lehi

[omegaseamaster75]

No you have posted that it impairs individuals with as little as one drink. I disagree.

 Show me where it says there are no medical benefits.

Six reasons to drink a glass of wine a day: http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20410287,00.html

[LeSellers]

38 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

No you have posted that it impairs individuals with as little as one drink. I disagree.

 Show me where it says there are no medical benefits.

Six reasons to drink a glass of wine a day: http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20410287,00.html

"A glass of wine" is alcoholic, not alcohol. A mug of beer is alcoholic, not alcohol.

You're making the assertion, it's your responsibility is to prove it. Show us where ethyl alcohol is medically beneficial.

If there were an experiment showing that alcohol treats anything, cures any disease, heals (not disinfects—a property of its being a poison) any wound, makes people more sane or any other beneficial outcome, I could accept your premise. I have heard of none of them.

Further, any purported benefits of beer or wine are offset by the poison in the alcohol itself. That's why the warning is to make it one (or two for large men) glass—the alcohol is poisonous.

Lehi

[zil]

55 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

What's CFR mean?

Code of Federal Regulations.  But it doesn't seem intended in this case.

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

Is there anything in what I said that was false?

Technically, no (that I'm aware of; I'm not going to verify every medical claim you made). But the statements you made are very sweeping and fail to account for individual alcohol tolerance, something that varies quite a bit. For example, I had three beers last night before leaving work. Was my BAC under the legal limit? Most likely. Did I feel unsafe driving home? Absolutely not. Is it possible that someone else could be a danger to themselves or others after three drinks? Of course.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is the (again, sweeping) statements made about the effects of a single drink. I'm not saying that one drink has zero effect on the body, but you're making it sound like I should be calling Uber after a single beer. For the average drinker, there is no perceived difference in motor or cognitive ability after one drink (and often two), period. 

 

Quote

Alcohol is a poison. There is no escaping that fact.

No one here is denying that. Some are suggesting that your remarks on the effects of small amounts of alcohol may be exaggerated and over-generalized.

 

Quote

But it is factually incorrect to claim that alcohol itself has medical benefits (aside from dissolving other compounds, possibly making them more effective).

Again, no one is claiming that alcohol has health benefits (though it does increase good cholesterol levels), but rather that beer and wine do. Beer (when unfiltered) is full of potassium and vitamins. Wine promotes heart health and good blood pressure. Whether these benefits are enough to justify drinking is entirely up to the individual, but to claim that alcoholic beverages have no health benefits is blatantly false.

 

Quote

 

I've already posted it.

No, you've posted negative effects of alcohol. That's not the same as disproving the positive benefits.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Godless

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

Code of Federal Regulations.  But it doesn't seem intended in this case.

LOL That's what I got when I googled it too.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

Technically, no (that I'm aware of; I'm not going to verify every medical claim you made). But the statements you made are very sweeping and fail to account for individual alcohol tolerance, something that varies quite a bit. For example, I had three beers last night before leaving work. Was my BAC under the legal limit? Most likely. Did I feel unsafe driving home? Absolutely not. Is it possible that someone else could be a danger to themselves or others after three drinks? Of course.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is the (again, sweeping) statements made about the effects of a single drink. I'm not saying that one drink has zero effect on the body, but you're making it sound like I should be calling Uber after a single beer. For the average drinker, there is no perceived difference in motor or cognitive ability after one drink, period. 

Very well said. When I go out with a good friend of mine he'll usually drink two or three beers. Never once did I feel "at danger" with him driving. He has a really nice car so he's very picky about who drives it. Given my accident history, he correctly does not want me to drive. Sadly, all my accidents have been when I was sober! Yikes! 

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

What's CFR mean?

In this context, it's "call for references". Typically,. it means the requester doesn't believe what the other has said, and wants proof of the claim.

In this claim, however, it is impossible to prove a negative, and the person holding the opposite idea is the one who has the burden of proof.

Lehi

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

 

What's CFR mean?

Call For Referance

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

So you stand by the claim that Christ was a poisoner?

Or the Father if you wish to make the claim Christ at that time didn't have the necessary understanding

 

Going to an extreme, as you are doing here, is a logical fallacy.

Lehi

[omegaseamaster75]

36 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

"A glass of wine" is alcoholic, not alcohol. A mug of beer is alcoholic, not alcohol.

You're making the assertion, it's your responsibility is to prove it. Show us where ethyl alcohol is medically beneficial.

If there were an experiment showing that alcohol treats anything, cures any disease, heals (not disinfects—a property of its being a poison) any wound, makes people more sane or any other beneficial outcome, I could accept your premise. I have heard of none of them.

Further, any purported benefits of beer or wine are offset by the poison in the alcohol itself. That's why the warning is to make it one (or two for large men) glass—the alcohol is poisonous.

Lehi

Well you're changing your premise.

So you agree that the consumption of alcoholic beverages in moderation is OK in some circumstances?

[unixknight]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

Code of Federal Regulations.  But it doesn't seem intended in this case.

LOL That's what I got when I googled it too.