The danger of teetotalism

[Luke2427]

Many people already believe that teetotalism is Phariseeism.

That's a clear and terrible danger that many people are very persuaded exists.


But consider this danger as well:

Consider this scenario. A man likes beer in his twenties. He drinks about a pint a day. Research indicates that if he continues this practice he is THIRTY PERCENT LESS LIKELY TO CONTRACT THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF MEN.

But he has something against him. He goes to a backward fundamentalist type church and his preacher is dumb. (I know Skan, this is the harshness you keep talking about. I do it on purpose). This preacher preaches that alcohol is "LIQUID DEVIL!!" [in the voice of one of the Swamp People]. The young man swears off drinking "BY THE BARREL OR BY THE THIMBLE FULL!!!" [in the accent of the folks on Lizard Lick Towing].

But this young man has a terrible history of heart disease on BOTH SIDES OF HIS FAMILY.

Here is what I am saying. There is a lot of sin the leads to this mans death by a heart attack at age 44 leaving a family of three teenagers, a toddler and an unemployed wife behind to fend for themselves.

There's the sin of stupidity and arrogance on the part of the preacher.

There's the same sin on the part of the movement of which that preacher is a part.

There's the sin of all people involved calling that which God calls good- evil.

Finally, there's the sin of the young man who should be a more critical thinker, who should not have shunned a practice that would have reduced his risk of heart disease which killed him by THIRTY PERCENT. This action on his part stole from his children a very needed father, stole from his wife a very needed husband, etc...


Now a man has a right to refuse any treatment. But RIGHTS are not what we are talking about here.

If a man believes that all blood thinners are sinful and thus refuses to take them and dies 25 years before he would have if he had taken them- is he not sinning against those who love him and need him?

Is it not a sin if he convinces many people that blood thinners are sin and he costs them their lives?

Certainly.

 

[InTheLight]

What, did they have a sale at the strawman store today?

 

[exscentric]

"Everybody knows that teetotalism is Phariseeism."

Well, not everybody, I didn't - but your post seems to border on it. :tonofbricks:

 

[Revmitchell]

What, did they have a sale at the strawman store today?

You are being kind.

 

[Luke2427]

What, did they have a sale at the strawman store today?

You're just sniping.

How about an argument?

How about addressing the questions?

Are you saying that you don't think there are such preachers out there preaching these things?

 

[Luke2427]

I changed the wording of the first two lines. It is not true that everybody knows that teetotalism is phariseeism.

 

[preachinjesus]

The greatest danger of teetotalism is that it renders Jesus' first miracle obsolete.

 

[exscentric]

The greatest danger of teetotalism is that it renders Jesus' first miracle obsolete.

Might be a good sound bite but not really true. Merriam-Webster ": the principle or practice of complete abstinence from alcoholic drinks"

Even if you narrow the meaning to the idea of doing something for spiritual reasons it does not change the miracle at all. The Word nor the works of the Lord will never be obsolete especially by the acts or beliefs of men.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Many people already believe that teetotalism is Phariseeism.

That's a clear and terrible danger that many people are very persuaded exists.


But consider this danger as well:

Consider this scenario. A man likes beer in his twenties. He drinks about a pint a day. Research indicates that if he continues this practice he is THIRTY PERCENT LESS LIKELY TO CONTRACT THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF MEN.

But he has something against him. He goes to a backward fundamentalist type church and his preacher is dumb. (I know Skan, this is the harshness you keep talking about. I do it on purpose). This preacher preaches that alcohol is "LIQUID DEVIL!!" [in the voice of one of the Swamp People]. The young man swears off drinking "BY THE BARREL OR BY THE THIMBLE FULL!!!" [in the accent of the folks on Lizard Lick Towing].

But this young man has a terrible history of heart disease on BOTH SIDES OF HIS FAMILY.

Here is what I am saying. There is a lot of sin the leads to this mans death by a heart attack at age 44 leaving a family of three teenagers, a toddler and an unemployed wife behind to fend for themselves.

There's the sin of stupidity and arrogance on the part of the preacher.

There's the same sin on the part of the movement of which that preacher is a part.

There's the sin of all people involved calling that which God calls good- evil.

Finally, there's the sin of the young man who should be a more critical thinker, who should not have shunned a practice that would have reduced his risk of heart disease which killed him by THIRTY PERCENT. This action on his part stole from his children a very needed father, stole from his wife a very needed husband, etc...


Now a man has a right to refuse any treatment. But RIGHTS are not what we are talking about here.

If a man believes that all blood thinners are sinful and thus refuses to take them and dies 25 years before he would have if he had taken them- is he not sinning against those who love him and need him?

Is it not a sin if he convinces many people that blood thinners are sin and he costs them their lives?

Certainly.

Give it a rest, brother, we get it.

 

[webdog]

Might be a good sound bite but not really true. Merriam-Webster ": the principle or practice of complete abstinence from alcoholic drinks"

Even if you narrow the meaning to the idea of doing something for spiritual reasons it does not change the miracle at all. The Word nor the works of the Lord will never be obsolete especially by the acts or beliefs of men.

The context of the miracle account renders this false. Throwing some grape juice into water would turn it into watered down grape juice. Wine must be aged and only the best is well aged, well refined. The miracle is in ther fermentation...besides, I've never heard ANYONE say well aged grape juice is better than fresh. Have you?

 

[Bronconagurski]

The context of the miracle account renders this false. Throwing some grape juice into water would turn it into watered down grape juice. Wine must be aged and only the best is well aged, well refined. The miracle is in ther fermentation...besides, I've never heard ANYONE say well aged grape juice is better than fresh. Have you?

I don't know, the Welch's never makes it more than a week at our house.

 

[InTheLight]

You're just sniping.

How about an argument?

How about addressing the questions?

Are you saying that you don't think there are such preachers out there preaching these things?

Yes there are preachers that preach abstinence. However, according to you this is stupidity and you classified it as a sin. Stupidity is not a sin.

You invented a scenario where the preacher was arrogant. AFAIK, arrogance is not a sin, but even supposing it is, preaching abstinence is not arrogance in and of itself.

Believing abstinence to be a good life practice is not a sin either.

You are putting a lot of faith in a medical research study and then turning around and in its name, calling others sinners. That is arrogant.

Inventing a hypothetical situation and then using that to insinuate that others are sinners is bearing false witness.

Basically, you've made up a bunch of stuff in your head and are trying to prosecute people with your fantasies.

 

[Gina B]

Suggestion: make a youtube video, then you only have to preach it one time and simply link to it whenever you get the urge to repeat yourself.

Reminds me of how I and my brothers would get on each others nerves when bored. Without fail, one of us would start it... Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Then whoever asked it would annoy the others until someone caved and answered.

Then I grew up.

 

[OldRegular]

Many people already believe that teetotalism is Phariseeism.

That's a clear and terrible danger that many people are very persuaded exists.

This is #5 I believe! Most people are not followers of Jesus Christ!

But consider this danger as well:

Consider this scenario. A man likes beer in his twenties. He drinks about a pint a day. Research indicates that if he continues this practice he is THIRTY PERCENT LESS LIKELY TO CONTRACT THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF MEN.

But he has something against him. He goes to a backward fundamentalist type church and his preacher is dumb. (I know Skan, this is the harshness you keep talking about. I do it on purpose). This preacher preaches that alcohol is "LIQUID DEVIL!!" [in the voice of one of the Swamp People]. The young man swears off drinking "BY THE BARREL OR BY THE THIMBLE FULL!!!" [in the accent of the folks on Lizard Lick Towing].

But this young man has a terrible history of heart disease on BOTH SIDES OF HIS FAMILY.

If he has a genetic weakness for heart disease, and he does, then I suspect a pint of beer does little to nothing for him.

Here is what I am saying. There is a lot of sin the leads to this mans death by a heart attack at age 44 leaving a family of three teenagers, a toddler and an unemployed wife behind to fend for themselves.

A little melodramatic!

There's the sin of stupidity and arrogance on the part of the preacher.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Since you are preaching "Have a shot a Day" is it appropriate to call you stupid, ignorant, and arrogant? It seems there is more than a little Pharisaism in your semantics. You are like the Pharisee who said: I thank God I am not like this stupid, ignorant, and arrogant person! And God don't forget he is a backward fundamentalist!

There's the same sin on the part of the movement of which that preacher is a part.

There's the sin of all people involved calling that which God calls good- evil.

Where does God call a "Shot a Day" Good?

Finally, there's the sin of the young man who should be a more critical thinker, who should not have shunned a practice that would have reduced his risk of heart disease which killed him by THIRTY PERCENT. This action on his part stole from his children a very needed father, stole from his wife a very needed husband, etc...

Super melodramatic. It appears to me that you are claiming supernatural powers for this "Shot a Day" doctrine!

Now a man has a right to refuse any treatment. But RIGHTS are not what we are talking about here.

We still have that right. And you have the right to preach "a Shot a Day" as long as you have a pulpit. However, it appears to me you are trying to develop a doctrine on the basis of a study that could change tomorrow, rather than explaining what Scripture tells us.

If a man believes that all blood thinners are sinful and thus refuses to take them and dies 25 years before he would have if he had taken them- is he not sinning against those who love him and need him?

Is it not a sin if he convinces many people that blood thinners are sin and he costs them their lives?

Certainly.

Romans 5:12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

We are all going to die, some sooner than others, unless the Lord Jesus Christ returns!

 

[webdog]

I don't know, the Welch's never makes it more than a week at our house.

Do you resell it as the "best" juice?

amazing that pasturized juice STILL ferments...yet they had no pasteurization until a couple hundred years ago. How much faster would it ferment in Jesus' day.

 

[saturneptune]

Do you resell it as the "best" juice?

amazing that pasturized juice STILL ferments...yet they had no pasteurization until a couple hundred years ago. How much faster would it ferment in Jesus' day.

Actually both of you are wrong. Historical records prove that they miracle was in the form of grape Kool Aid.

 

[webdog]

Actually both of you are wrong. Historical records prove that they miracle was in the form of grape Kool Aid.

That's REAL aging...from 30's to 1950's!

 

[Luke2427]

Suggestion: make a youtube video, then you only have to preach it one time and simply link to it whenever you get the urge to repeat yourself.

Reminds me of how I and my brothers would get on each others nerves when bored. Without fail, one of us would start it... Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
Then whoever asked it would annoy the others until someone caved and answered.

Then I grew up.

Sniping is what you do when you are frustrated by an argumetn you can't answer.

You don't want to just ignore it because it makes you mad that your position has been shown to be so utterly flawed.

But you don't want to square off and debate fact for fact, logic for logic, scripture for scripture- BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

So you totally circumvent the argument and call the arguer immature REPEATEDLY.


This works well for simple minded people. But intelligent people see what you are doing and know how infantile it is.

 

[Luke2427]

If he has a genetic weakness for heart disease, and he does, then I suspect a pint of beer does little to nothing for him.

It does not matter what you think about that. What matters is what people think who know what they are talking about- people who know a great deal more about it than you and I- people who have been trained- people who make a living studying such things- people like- well... THE ONE'S WHO DID THIS STUDY!

A little melodramatic!

Do you know what melodrama is?

It has to do with drama that does not recognize the law of cause and effect.

Explain how my anecdote violates the law of cause and effect.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Since you are preaching "Have a shot a Day" is it appropriate to call you stupid, ignorant, and arrogant? It seems there is more than a little Pharisaism in your semantics. You are like the Pharisee who said: I thank God I am not like this stupid, ignorant, and arrogant person! And God don't forget he is a backward fundamentalist!

No. Phariseeism is not calling sin sin. Phariseeism is calling something that is NOT sin sin.


However, I will admit to you, because I think you are a good man, that I am pressing it a bit.

But I am doing so with a purpose.

It took SHOCK to get me to see how PURE STUPID I was for years as a firebreathing, King James Only, fundamentalist.

I hope to shock the self-righteous systems of other fundamentalists like me (like I used to be)

And don't tell me it doesn't work or that I will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I pressed open many eyes to the stupidity and danger of backwards fundamentalism.

Where does God call a "Shot a Day" Good?

I Timothy 5:23 is one place.

Super melodramatic. It appears to me that you are claiming supernatural powers for this "Shot a Day" doctrine!

Supernatural powers? THAT'S the ESSENCE of melodrama.

I am simply pointing out what medical doctors and scientists have said.

There's no supernatural to that.

We still have that right. And you have the right to preach "a Shot a Day" as long as you have a pulpit. However, it appears to me you are trying to develop a doctrine on the basis of a study that could change tomorrow, rather than explaining what Scripture tells us.

No. The bible is clear as a bell. Alcohol drank responsibly is a good thing.
But we've had those arguments on baptistboard- ad nauseum.

And while intelligent people try to gently bring folks around to the truth on this matter, no ground is gained.

They try to be sweet as honey. They try to get folks to think. NOTHING.

So, I thought we'd come at it from a different angle.

And what I argue in the OP IS SOUND.

In fact, I am CERTAIN that it has happened. I, having been raised a fundy, am CERTAIN that many people who would have drank responsibly have been put off drinking responsibly by fundy preachers who don't even KNOW that almost NNE in the church throughout her history before 1830 preached teetotalism.

Fundy preachers who don't know how to interpret Scripture and who preach Proverbs as precepts (because you can't even TOUCH teetotalism outside of of the book of Proverbs!)

And if it is true that a pint of beer a day can stave off heart disease by THIRTY percent, I am certain that people have died young as a result of such preaching.

Romans 5:12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

We are all going to die, some sooner than others, unless the Lord Jesus Christ returns!

You don't believe that the fact that everyone's death is already appointed means that you just throw caution to the wind's concerning what treatments you take and don't take.

I bet you take meds now. I BET you take coumadin (most old folks do).

It's a blood thinner.

So is beer.

 

[OldRegular]

Sniping is what you do when you are frustrated by an argumetn you can't answer.

You don't want to just ignore it because it makes you mad that your position has been shown to be so utterly flawed.

But you don't want to square off and debate fact for fact, logic for logic, scripture for scripture- BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

So you totally circumvent the argument and call the arguer immature REPEATEDLY.


This works well for simple minded people. But intelligent people see what you are doing and know how infantile it is.

Really not very nice Luke. Frankly I haven't followed the posts on the 5 threads very closely. I have only made two posts. That being said your openly expressed contempt for those who believe in total abstinence is deplorable. The use of words like stupid, ignorant, infantile is not becoming a pastor. I don't understand what your purpose could be by use of the threads. I assume you do not find it necessary to justify yourself in such a manner.

I have indicated on one thread that I was not a total abstinence person but my consumption is very limited. I simply have lost what ever taste I had for the stuff.

I have three very close friends, Christian brothers who partake a little. All three, like me, have had bypass surgery. The oldest, a Baptist brother, likes beer. He had bypass surgery 17 years before me. A second Baptist brother, three months my elder, likes a little wine and had bypass surgery 7 years after me. The third, a Presbyterian elder and my oldest friend is one year younger than me, likes a little more wine and had bypass surgery 3 years after me. These man are my dear brothers. I have nothing but love for them. I would never condemn them for their modest indulgence. Neither do they condemn me or insult me for my abstinence.

Now I realize that the above statistics are anecdotal but they don't give much credence to your sermon! Sermons!