Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

Coffee - Health Food!


Tom Wetmore

Recommended Posts

Ger,

Wonderfully meaningful stuff there, but offtopic

I even carefully read through your lists and mulled over just how drinking coffee might actually relate/effect/diminish, or whatever any of those 23 points. There really is no correlation with any of them and one could make a reasonably good case that drinking coffee could have a positive effect on many of them.

All right now, back to our regularly scheduled programing...

Tom

I am with you Tom. I thought it was all very confusing to me also. Not sure what it had to do with any discussions here.

And Bravus ... GOOD question. I hope someone will answer it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Woody

    43

  • David Koot

    32

  • olger

    22

  • Bravus

    21

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

My original question was, if coffee was shown *not* to harm health, and in fact to promote health, would its use still be sin, just because she mistakenly said so?

I think that if coffee is shown not to harm health and in fact to promote health, it would not be a sin. But the problem is that we can be misaken about our conclusions because we may not be aware of all the facts related to the results of coffee consumption. Some things have been declared healthy, only to have later scientific studies prove that some of those things are actually harmful. So it might be the case with coffee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question IS ...

Are the words of Ellen White and her use of science as SHE knew it ... EVER WRONG ? IF so ... how do we know which of her words are right and which are wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in the thread the point was made that caffeine is a "poison". Then Bravus pointed us to research which indicated that caffeine (or rather coffee which contains caffeine) could in fact be beneficial.

Can both these points be true? I believe that they are not mutually exclusive. Take for example some of the vitamins which we know are essential to our well-being but which are quite toxic when taken in much larger doses (A, D and some of the B group [b1,B6, B12] fall into this category).

The point being the amount ingested. It is not a case of this much is good for you so ten times as much must be ten times as good. The principle is moderation. May this not also apply to coffee?

Graeme

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
"Tea and coffee drinking is a sin, and injurious undulgence. which, like other evils, injures the soul" Ellen White ... Counsels on Diet and Foods p.425

When looking at this quote ... the emphasis seems to be that tea and coffee drinking is injurious to the SOUL. She does not appear to dwell much on the actual bodily harm that it does or does not do. Her focus is that it harms the SOUL.

Is there anything we can learn from this apparent focus?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
"Tea and coffee drinking is a sin, and injurious undulgence. which, like other evils, injures the soul" Ellen White ... Counsels on Diet and Foods p.425

When looking at this quote ... the emphasis seems to be that tea and coffee drinking is injurious to the SOUL. She does not appear to dwell much on the actual bodily harm that it does or does not do. Her focus is that it harms the SOUL.

Is there anything we can learn from this apparent focus?

The "soul" usually means the entire person. However, the context makes it plain that sometimes she uses "soul" to refer to the spiritual aspect of the person. For instance: "We are to do all in our power for the healing of the body; but we are to make the healing of the soul of far greater importance." CH 272.

In the case of coffee and tea, she writes about their "ever working against spiritual progress." CH 442. She means in Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 425, that the things she mentions prevent a person from making the spiritual progress that God would have them make.

Ellen White saw a close connection between the body and the mind. The latter being the only means that God has of reaching us, it obviously behooves us to do all we can to keep the channel open and healthy so God can speak clearly to us and so that we have clear minds that can distinguish between truth and error. That is the primary reason for the SDA health message. Ellen White said: "The relation which exists between the mind and the body is very intimate. When one is affected, the other sympathizes. The condition of the mind affects the health of the physical system." CH 18

"The health reform is one branch of the great work which is to fit a people for the coming of the Lord. It is as closely connected with the third angel's message as the hand is with the body... It is impossible for men and women, while under the power of sinful, health-destroying, brain-enervating habits, to appreciate sacred truth." CH 20, 21

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks John317 but now I am just more confused than before. Does healing of the soul mean healing of the body or healing of us spiritually. She apparently says it can means both or one or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks John317 but now I am just more confused than before. Does healing of the soul mean healing of the body or healing of us spiritually. She apparently says it can means both or one or the other.

She means doing everything we can to keep the body healthy because of the close relationship between the condition of the body and the mind.

She means in Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 425, that the things she mentions prevent a person from making the spiritual progress that God would have them make.

Ellen White saw a close connection between the body and the mind. The latter being the only means that God has of reaching us, it obviously behooves us to do all we can to keep the channel open and healthy so God can speak clearly to us and so that we have clear minds that can distinguish between truth and error. That is the primary reason for the SDA health message. Ellen White said: "The relation which exists between the mind and the body is very intimate. When one is affected, the other sympathizes. The condition of the mind affects the health of the physical system." CH 18

"The health reform is one branch of the great work which is to fit a people for the coming of the Lord. It is as closely connected with the third angel's message as the hand is with the body... It is impossible for men and women, while under the power of sinful, health-destroying, brain-enervating habits, to appreciate sacred truth." CH 20, 21

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds good John317. Thank you.

But .... Is her insight faulty with the understanding of tea and coffee? Are they that harmful and sinful? How do we know which of her insights are faulty and which are accurate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this brings to mind another point from Scripture that seems to go counter to the health reform/right arm of the gospel message of EGW. Paul faced a similar controversy in the early church that was deeply rooted in the Jewish "health message". His conclusion was:

Quote:
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean [sinful] in itself...For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit...Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food...So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds good John317. Thank you.

But .... Is her insight faulty with the understanding of tea and coffee? Are they that harmful and sinful? How do we know which of her insights are faulty and which are accurate?

There are different kinds of teas, so of course we should not consider all teas as exactly alike, whether that means harmful or beneficial to our health. She herself drank some herb teas. The tea she has reference to as being deleterious to the health is black tea. It contains two drugs, caffeine and theophylline. They are both similar from a chemical standpoint and both are designated as alkaloids. Theophylline is used in medicine as a stimulant for the heart. Caffeine is classed in medical textbooks as both a stimulant and a poison. The fatal dose is listed as one-third ounce (10 grams). It would require the amount of caffeine contained in 80 to 100 ordinary cups of coffee to kill an individual if taken in a single dose.

According to studies done about the results of coffee drinking, there has been shown to be a "significant correlation between the use of coffee and the later development of coronary disease." I don't have the data in front of me, but the study on the health of SDA showed that those who drink no coffee have less incidence of heart disease. Animal experiments indicate that coffe tends to raise the level of cholesterol in the blood in proportion to the amount of caffeine in the coffee.

Jethro Kloss, author of Back To Eden, wrote, "Do not drink coffee and tea, which are harmful. Coffee weakens the heart muscle...Coffee hinders digestion, is a cause of constipation, and poisons the body."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, coffee is actually a stimulant of the gastrointestinal tract and 'moves things along'... if the rest of Jethro's info is as suspect as his pronouncement on that issue I'm not inclined to pay him a lot of mind.

And olger's 'there's enough caffiene in one cup of coffee to kill you' proved to be not so accurate either.

Redwood actually has the right question: does the medical evidence matter? If it doesn't, why are we citing it? But if it does, then let's try to be accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Drinking perked or unfiltered coffee, like espresso or French-press coffees, can raise your cholesterol levels. The good news is, if you drink filtered coffee, you aren’t getting the oil compounds which could be the culprit that raise the cholesterol in coffee drinkers."

http://www.kitchenslave.com/coffeecaffeinenews.htm

Can't find any references to caffiene itself increasing cholesterol. Actually this raises an interesting point: the positive health effects in the article that started this thread were not ascribed to caffiene but to one of the other chemicals in coffee. So (a) maybe EGW was talking about something other than caffiene in coffee (oops, that might make Coke OK!!) and (B) if caffiene *is* the problem, decaf might be OK (with current processes the remaining caffiene is way less than 3%).

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I was doing some discussion with Denise on this topic. I am wondering if all this new "science" about wine and coffee having healthful benefits, isn't just a new attack from a different front by the devil? To get us to accept something we should be staying away from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is, I guess, that we're incredibly blessed to have the options we have in terms of diet. A huge number of people in the world eat and drink what they can get. I think aldona is right that perhaps if we put more energy into thinking about that and trying to alleviate it, we might spend less energy on this stuff.

Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this brings to mind another point from Scripture that seems to go counter to the health reform/right arm of the gospel message of EGW. Paul faced a similar controversy in the early church that was deeply rooted in the Jewish "health message". His conclusion was:

Quote:
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean [sinful] in itself...For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit...Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food...So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.
Tom

The context of Paul's statements in Romans 14 had to do, not with health per se, but with the eating of meat offered to idols. He wrote Romans 14 about a year before the writing of 1 Corinthians 8 and 10: 14-22, verses which deal with the same issue. Acts 15: 29 shows that the Jerusalem conference also dealt with the question of eating meat sacrificed to false gods. Some people were eating only vegetables in order to avoid any chance of eating flesh that had been dedicated to the gods and thus doing offence to God. Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 8 was that since false gods don't even exist, as long as they were not harming other believers' faith, they could eat meat offered to idols. The main principle, he said, is love, so that we avoid doing anything that would cause our Christian brothers and sisters to stumble.

Had Paul been teaching that the distinction between the unclean and the clean were abolished and to be ignored, Acts would not have recorded what is found in Acts 21: 24, and Paul could not have said, ""I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets." Acts 24: 14.

Paul clearly is not saying that we can eat anything irrespective of the harm it does to our bodies. At Romans 12, just two chapters before, Paul had already dealt with the issue of the importance of the health of our bodies: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship." We should also keep in mind the Holy Spirit's instruction in 1 Thess. 5: 23: "May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound [healthy] and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 3 John 2 adds, "Beloved, I pray that all may be well with you and that you may be in health." It should be obvious that God is not telling us that we can eat anything or do anything that does harm to our bodies, the temple of the Holy Spirit. For that reason, Paul says, "Let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God." 2 Cor. 7: 1.

Nor is he saying that there is no longer a difference between clean and unclean animals as far as our eating them is concerned. After all, the distinction between clean and unclean animals preceeded the existence of the first Jew by about 1000 years. It is interesting to note that almost all of the animals that Lev. 11 says we should not eat are considered scavengers. The vast majority of these we would not want to eat anyway.

By the way, Mark 7: 19-- "Thus he [Christ] declared all foods clean"-- does not do away with the distinction between the clean and the unclean meat any more than Acts 10 does (despite much opinion to the contrary). The KJV gives the proper and more literal translation of Mark 7: 19, there being not a single ancient Greek manuscript that contains the words, "he declared." What the Greek actually says is, "thus purging all foods". The word is not flesh but food, broma. In Acts 10, the issue has to do with spreading the gospel to the gentiles, not with whether Peter was willing to eat pigs and snakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... So (a) maybe EGW was talking about something other than caffiene in coffee (oops, that might make Coke OK!!) and (B) if caffiene *is* the problem, decaf might be OK (with current processes the remaining caffiene is way less than 3%).

Recent studies show that decaf coffee may cause arthritis. I am concerned about this because my wife drinks decaf and has been experiencing some symptoms of arthritis. I used to be a rather heavy coffee drinker but have changed over the last year to drinking Postum, Roma, and Pero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I was doing some discussion with Denise on this topic. I am wondering if all this new "science" about wine and coffee having healthful benefits, isn't just a new attack from a different front by the devil? To get us to accept something we should be staying away from?

Personally I have no doubt. But let each person be persuaded in his/her own mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, coffee is actually a stimulant of the gastrointestinal tract and 'moves things along'... if the rest of Jethro's info is as suspect as his pronouncement on that issue I'm not inclined to pay him a lot of mind.

Jethro Kloss wrote what he did about coffee and tea around 1938. As a young man, he was very sick and the doctors had given up on being able to do anything to help him get well. At that point, Kloss says that he "came across some books written by Mrs. E.G. White, who, though not a physician, was a great medical missionary. In those books I found statements like these: 'Nine out of every ten could get well if they would use simple God-given means.' 'Do not eat food that makes you sick.' This was an entirely new line of thought to me. Up to that time I had never heard such things mentioned." So, he got his health back by following the advice in Ellen White's books. He went on to live a long and healthy life, teaching hundreds of thousand how to be healthy, and writing a classic, Back To Eden, on natural foods and home remedies, a book in continual circulation since 1939. Much of what he says--for instance about diet and health-- has been substantiated by modern medicine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just really quick:

I didn't quote Romans 14 on clean and unclean meats, but on not judging one another.

And there's nothing in the context of the first verse of Romans 12 to indicate it's talking about health.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravus said: "And olger's 'there's enough caffiene in one cup of coffee to kill you' proved to be not so accurate either."

Here is the quote in its entirety "Caffiene is a toxin, a foreign substance. The body has no use for this toxin, and in fact, there is enough caffiene in 1-cup of coffee to kill you. Believe that, or not? 120-milligrams. Inject that into the bloodstream and you're gonna die."

If you or I inject 120 milligrams of caffiene into our bloodstream, we will be dead in less than 24-hours. This was my statement and it is true. Feel free to check that out, don't take my word for it.

My point is, people drink it all the time and they don't die. In fact they say "I feel great." Right? The poison does not make it into bloodstream, it is "neutralized" and that comes at a cost to the body. The "rush" that a person experiences is the body revving up to fight the toxin. That comes at a tremendous cost.

Western society is increasingly consuming substances that strip calcium from the body and many degenerative diseases are the result. Western society is also sometimes dedicated to coming up with studies that seem to "support" the use of harmful substances in order to justify our cultural habits. You can find almost any study to support your "addiction" if you look for it.

Finally, there is a spiritual cost to anything that we become addicted to. This too, lies at the heart of Ellen White's counsel regarding harmful substances. Coffee? I don't touch the stuff. I had a half-cup back in 1981. Didn't like what it did to me--I could tell.

The only permissable addiction I am aware of in the Good Book is Proverbs 5:19.

Live long and prosper,

olger

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I injected a litre of water into your blood stream, you would be very sick

If I injected a few ounces of peanut butter, you would be very sick

If I injected a litre of air, you would die

The fact of the matter is that your lungs and GI tract are filters, and not everything that goes into your stomach or lungs goes into your bloodstream

http://www.drugs.com/cons/caffeine.html

The "rush" is NOT your body rev'ing up to fight a toxin.

Caffeine is chemically similar to other chemicals in your body that excite the central nervous system.

I don't drink coffee or caffeinated beverages except on rare occassions when I need to stay awake - especially when I need to stay awake during my body's natural low from 1am-230am - but it ain't the big toxin that you are making it out to be.

/Bevin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Toxic dose

The LD_50 of caffeine (that is the lethal dosage reported to kill 50% of the population) is estimated at 10 grams for oral administration. As it is usually the case, lethal dosage varies from individual to individual according to weight. Ingestion of 150mg/kg of caffeine seems to be the LD_50 for all people. That is, people weighting 50 kilos have an LD_50 of approx. 7.5 grams, people weighting 80 kilos have an LD_50 of about 12 grams.

In cups of coffee the LD_50 varies from 50 to 200 cups of coffee or about 50 vivarins (200mg each).

One exceptional case documents survival after ingesting 24 grams. The minimum lethal dose ever reported was 3.2 grams intravenously, this does not represent the oral MLD (minimum lethal dose).

In small children ingestion of 35 mg/kg can lead to moderate toxicity. The amount of caffeine in an average cup of coffee is 50 - 200 mg.

Sorry, 150 mg per kilogram of body weight is around 10 grams or so for the average adult, administered orally. You're talking about intravenous administration, but the minimum lethal dose by intravenous administration is 3.2 grams, which is still the equivalent of 20 (150 mg) cups of coffee.

So, what do you do in a situation where your science is plain wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...