Featured Have a Beer! It may be sinful NOT TO!

Yeah, it is that simple. Overeat, get fat. Don't overeat, don't get fat.

It's for the most part self-evident when someone is fat

The needs one's body.

Though his profession vain and empty, as I said, the needs of the body determine what is overeating.

Fat people eat more than their body needs. It's that simple.

 

No, the truth and you know it.

Funny, you acknowledge the possibility, (of which is factual, look it up). And now leave you argument that not drinking beer is sinful because it is healthier, to it drunk cause millions like it more? Wow.. talk about rationalizing your arguments. You haven't given any scripture which states if you don't drink alcoholic drinks you are in sin.

Beating it is easy, just look at the research.
From the Mayo Clinic put out in 2012 regarding health benefits and negative effects:

Emphasis mine
as well as:

According to the above medical website, your stats are a bit off.
And it isn't a Pint they recommend (16oz.) it is 12oz.- just saying.

How about researching the negative bodily effects of alcohol on millions.

But I understand YOUR secondary argument - If it feels good do it. Heard that argument before. I hear much the same argument for smoking weed from some who call themselves Christians.

Yes. and enjoying the fact that God says we don't have to indulge.

I find it interesting also that not everyone in scripture is allowed to drink.
You take a portion from the OT about drinking and forget the Priest was forbidden to drink before or during his time of ministering. People who made vows to God were not permitted to (such as the Nazarite vow), and princes and Kings - according to God, were forbidden to. Didn't stop them, but it was not for them to drink.

LOL.. that argument is so silly. If you preach everyone should be drinking and someone in your congregation becomes a drunkard by blindly following you..

Blindly is funny when scripture tells us we can choose not to for His glory. That our life is based upon our alcoholic consumption base is fallacy and biblical errancy.

 

Eat more than your body needs or can use, and one gains weight. But I have yet to see photos of fat internees of concentration camps during the time of war--except for some of the well-fed Japanese interned in the U.S.

 

Well Luke, it's been real. I didn't see you address your own preaching of daily drinking in the other thread as you claimed, but perhaps my eyes aren't what they used to be. I'll look again.

I see this is going to be more contentious than beneficial, so it's rather pointless. It's definitely a hot topic that is very personal to many.

I get the feeling you overstated your beliefs in order to make a point and hope that assumption is right. If that's the case, perhaps that means a more rational discussion can happen sometime in the future.

In the meantime, I've stated my piece and my hope for you is simply that you'll not promote daily drinking so that others will not stumble. The daily imbibing is what really got me angry. I've defended it in the past as medicinal, have almost always admitted there is no proof that it cannot be used with Thanksgiving in some places, though personally, I can't go over what I've seen in our society enough to be comfortable with the concept of having one "just for social reasons." The celebration of a Holy Day might be different.

So that's that. Judging by who you associate with on here, it seems that you're a decent person and do a lot of good, so I'll be interested in your posts on other topics and hope one day, we'll both be able to approach this particular one without anger or frustration.

Have a beautiful day.

 

Yes...let's equate starvation with "eating less". Ignorant...but wouldn't expect anything less.

 

Allan and Gina,

As has been discussed before, I do believe Luke has a tendency to overstate his case...or do so in a relatively harsh manner, making it more difficult to accept or rationally discuss. He also tends to offend with his phrasing, as you both have pointed out. (I love him and agree with him on this point, but openly admit he should work on his presentation)

However, with that said, I don't THINK Luke is attempting to say that people shouldn't abstain, if that is what they choose to do in faith. He seems to be arguing for freedom, which would obviously include the freedom to not drink. In fact, it would be wise for someone to abstain if they were prone to such addictions or if they had a history with problems.

I THINK Luke is saying (or maybe I should just speak for myself on this point) is that people shouldn't abstain because they believe it is sinful to consume alcohol. They should understand that partaking is permissible but may not be beneficial and thus make a decision based on a Faith based relationship, not based on shame, obligation or guilt. Temperance preaching, which openly condemns those who choose to partake, is wrong. That is sinful preaching and is just as bad as the Judiazers who preached that Gentiles had to abstain from meat or get circumcised. That kind of preaching over the years has lead some to abstain and look down upon others who don't. That causes others to stumble as well.

A pastor would be wise to warn people of the dangers of abuse and the dangerous of legalism. Both extremes can cause others to stumble.

 

It is eating less. Whatever nutrition the body does not need for energy, it turns to fat. It is building the cells from something, and it isn't thin air.

If one has gained a pound of fat, it is because he has taken in a pound more than could be burned or passed "into the draught."

 

Skan.. My point is that not drinking is not sin. Luke states not drinking is sinful.

On this he stands contrary to scripture and it is as simple as that.

 

I understood that point and agreed with your post...

I admit that I haven't read all of Luke's post on this thread, so I admit that I could be mistaken, but he did clearly state, "I have said no less than a half dozen times on this thread that it I do not begrudge anyone their right to personally abstain."

I can understand how some take his phrasing to mean that 'not drinking is sinful,' period, but what I think he was trying to convey is that abstaining for the WRONG reasons (obligation/law) is sinful...and is especially damaging when such legalism is preached. You all SEEM to be talking past each other. But I could be misreading one of you.

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

1. You both agree it is not wrong for a Christian to drink responsibly for the right reasons.

2. You both agree it is not wrong for a Christian to abstain from drinking for the right reasons.
​

So, what exactly are we debating?

 

A much wiser choice to maintain wellness is to eat a healthy diet and exercise on a regular basis, there is no comparison in the qualities of life between these choices of lifestyle options if wellness is motivating factor. To suggest that to consume alcohol on a regular basis is way to good health is not only silly but calls into question the motivation for taking up such an argument considering the better alternatives and raises concerns of excuses being developed due to dependence issues. Alcohol messes with your brain and effects judgment, it can lead to spiritual issues, it adds a lot of empty calories to one’s diet and if used should be used very moderately.

The overwhelming odds are is that best way to hit (not sin) the mark of good health is by not getting caught up in a lifestyle of regularly consuming alcohol and to choose a better alternative options to bring enjoyments into life. The use of alcohol can be very counterprodutive.

 

Re-read the thread title, "Not drinking may be sinful."

Among other things, Luke is saying that if you don't preach consumption of alcohol in moderation you could be causing people to develop heart disease.

I'm in the pro-moderation camp, but Luke is going way overboard with his rhetoric by trying to indict people or preachers that advocate abstaining.

I think the debate has morphed into objecting to Luke's assertion that you MUST drink.

 

Exactly my point. "May" typically means 'might or might not.'

That may be so...but I'm trying to find points of commonality and understanding. The question for me would be, "Why does the preacher 'advocate abstaining?'

I agree, but that seems to me to be a misplaced argument based on a misunderstood and overstated assertion.

 

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children."​

Some are called to be more like John the Baptist, and others more like Christ, but a wise decision is proven by its fruit. What is important to note is that John didn't condemn Christ for drinking wine, an Christ didn't condemn John for abstaining. We should learn from their example! :godisgood:

 

A sin is missing the mark, the bullseye, that in which the goal is to hit dead on center and one should be using the best tools available to reach that goal; if the target is good health there are much better options for hitting that mark (and blurred vision and poor judgment certanly isn't going to help either), therefore if a preacher is telling his flock to abstain from alcohol (if the target is good heath) he is preaching about how one should be abstaining from sin. How about that?

 

According to some doctors, maybe...

But this really isn't even about good health to me. Eating a browie now and then isn't for good health, it is for enjoyment and there is NOTHING wrong with that. I don't fish for my health, but for fun and there is NOTHING wrong with that. etc etc etc...

'Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink ('strong drink' KJV), or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice' (Deuteronomy 14:26)​

 

And what does he consider the wrong reasons.. well here is one of his post to me:

IE.. it is a sin to not drink alcohol if it is presumed to give some benefits - due personal beliefs, and worse if you encourage others that it is not wise either.

Notice that he states what is sin... when those beliefs keep you from partaking in things that could save your life. What is he saying can save your life - alcohol. Therefore if you are not partaking due to your personal beliefs, you are in sin.

 

Let's take it one sentence at a time and I'll try to translate:

"...What is sin is when those personal beliefs keep you from partaking in things that could save your life." - Luke

Translation: Sin is abstaining for the wrong reasons (i.e. I think is a sin to drink because God forbids it).

And what's worse than that is when you take that stupidity public. -Luke

Translation: And what is worse than abstaining for the wrong reasons is trying to make everyone else abstain for those same wrong reasons.

I think his presumption is that a drink COULD help someone's health, like medications could (a debatable point). We all know of groups who refuse medical care because they too reason that if God wanted to help them He will and they don't need medication. That is faulty logic because God gave us medication and doctors...just as he gave us wine.

So can I assume by this logic that you abstain from ingesting or enjoying anything that might be questionable for your health? No sugar, caffeine, desserts, or carbonated drinks for you?

Like I just posted, this isn't really a health debate for me. I know that has been part of Luke's argument, but that is a side issue for me.

 

ALSO...

Personally, I think the health issue is irrelevant to the question of permissibility. I drink occasionally, but not for my health. I enjoy it. It makes me feel 'merry' and relaxed. Just as some feel energized by coffee. My wife and I will partake on romanic evenings and it helps to 'set the mood' if you will, and I like that very much. There is NOTHING sinful or displeasing to God about that according to scripture. Just as there is nothing wrong or displeasing to God about someone choosing to abstain for the right reasons.

The ONLY sin in regard to either side of this debate is abusing alcohol (drinking for the wrong reasons and in the wrong manner) or abstaining for the wrong reasons (teaching/believing it is sinful for people to drink responsibly.)

 

It only gets harder as time goes on. Developing good habits and practicing the very best methods will give the best results. One’s lifestyle should be considered as a whole and all the best alternatives together will lead to the best results in health.

The number one reason for heart disease is being overweight and obesity and alcohol is often a major contributing factor. Although great medical treatment advances in the last 20 years have been made against heart disease the % of death from it continues to rise because of the epidemic of obesity.

Oh, but it can easily often be related! Do you find that interesting as well? If not, why not? That alcohol is not the number one killer does not justify its use.

Pssfftt! Oh, I could think of MUCH better ways and alcohol would not even be close to the top of my list.

First of all, “moderate is two drinks a day?!?” 150 calories x 2 = 300 a day x 7 = 2100 calories a week or a full day’s worth of extra empty calories each week in a society which extremely prone to being overweight and obese which is the leading cause of heart disease.
.

I’m thinking about the argument to drink for better health right now and it isn’t adding up in your favor.

Yeah, I heard it…

Uh huh…

And it just as well "may" not. That’s quite a stretch in reasoning to advocate or justify more drinking, don’t you think? Kind of saying it is a worse to sin to starve to death that it is to be a glutton since how much it takes to be glutton is specified in the Bible.

Well, I’ve drank wine three times in the last year (I’ll blame it on stress and justify it on the needs of my stomach, TYVM :saint so I wouldn’t exactly call myself a teetotaler, but I guarantee you I could make quite a case about what is responsible or not concerning this matter while offering much better alternatives for good health.

Ever heard of the "perfectionist fallacy" concerning that reasoning? Nevermind...don't care to go there. But only to say, I diligently trained my 18 and 20 years olds that more harm comes from the use of alcohol than good and used many examples from the lives of those who do get caught up in the additions from alcohol to persuade them to abstain. I used proverbs with them extensively when growing up to warn them of the influences of the world which are a tool of the Devil to bring them harm.

I contend that Proverbs gives knowledge -> understanding -> wisdom and this provides better discretion for our children when they are confronted with the choices they will make in life pertaining to all things including better health.

I contend that “LOW Bible IQ” and “attempting to argue FOR teetotalism” are not logically necessarily related and the genre in proverbs does not prevent one from gaining wisdom in this area that would lead to using one’s biblical knowledge of discretion which in turn leads to choosing to diligently limit the possibilities of becoming addicted to the common abuses of alcohol that the world so often attempts to advocate as harmless fun to them.

 

Okay, but the Op is making some pretty bold claims ("according to some doctors") to advocate its use on the basis for better health for the heart that I would/and did certainly call on its reasoning while I would/ and do advocating that there are much better and practical choices as well as point to the often ignored harmful effects "if" health is the motivation.

I wouldn't condemn your use as described, that is, if "setting the mood" is more important to you than the fact that you are numbing your senses.:laugh:

Having dealt with substance abuse the root cause being to ease my pains and make me feel better I have found that naturally feeling good to be much more profitable. It took quite some time for my brain to learn to come to feeling the joys of life agin naturally because of those neurological channels being interfered with and today I treasure that natural ability which I have. Just sayin...

Abuse is also my concern with it and that this is often taken way to lightly while many excuses are developed to support its use that I do believe should be called into question as "sin" defined as: (missing the mark of hitting the target right in the bullseye) IMO...