Featured Champions of moderation- not abstinence

Each local church decides the issue, not the SBC. The Baptist Faith and Message does not contain a statement above abstaining from alcohol. Under Article 15, the Christian and the Social Order it states "Christians should oppose every form of greed, selfishness, and vice................................."

 

Who was traveling as a companion of Paul? Luke.

Luke was a physician. No doubt he probably advised Paul's writing to Tim on the stomach problem. However, it IS a medicinal use just as I have stated permission is given in Scriptures.

The problem with using this passage as permission is that virtually NNE in the modern world fulfills the conditions under which permission was given. And therefore, because the permission is absent of conditions necessary for activation, it is not applicable for use as intended by those who choose to intoxicate at any level.

Besides, there is a medicinal element that might be considered in that the person who journeyed for so long, no doubt acquired some disturbance (physical or emotional/mental) that needed the calming effects of what some doctors might proscribe as a mild sedative for a short time.

Also, the partaking was a ONE TIME occurrence NOT to be repeated just willy dilly at the pleasure of one who wants to intoxicate as the modern imbibers do, do.

Well, good for you being fervent in evangelism. I will not be critical of any successful work the Lord does.

What is a joke is that you would expect the heathen world system of media to endorse ANY form of standards that bear that of a dedicated believer. Such media has from the founding been funded by the most vile and contemptible (see documentary of mafia funding of Hollywood in opposition to the KKK), and I have seen no righteous portrayal of the Godly believer ever funded by heathens that even comes close to the truth.

But is that not the very words if not intent of some who have posted on this thread stating blatantly and boastfully that public intoxication is just liberty displayed and claiming righteous freedom?

Now, I know someone is going to jump on "moderation" and "intoxication" but frankly, just what do you really consider is the intent of the intoxicant?

Is it not to in fact inhibit by intoxicating the person?

It isn't "how much does it take to intoxify" or what is legal intoxification, it is just as the proverbs state: Wine IS a mocker, Strong drink IS raging.

The Scriptures don't state: too much wine is a mocker, or too much strong drink is raging.

It states: give intoxicants to them that have no hope, who are medically in need, and who are dying.

Anyone on the BB know someone that fits that criteria, then they have Biblical permission (under medical usage) to partake - it is called compassion.

 

Champions of moderation- not abstinence

I see we're into the summertime reruns.

 

Wrong, as those who are buzzed don't lose control of their faculties. That kind of reasoning leads to someone no longer being hungry as being accused as gluttonous.

 

Wrong buzzed cannot legally drive because they are mentally impaired. Buzzed means your state of mind has changed and you are less than sober minded. Anything less than sober minded is sin.

 

Two basic facts:
1.) You know and understand the general intent and meaning of the word "buzzed" in modern parlance.

2.) You also know and can personally identify the difference between the verbiage "buzzed" and "drunk".

Thus: For you to then suggest that "buzzed" has the same meaning as "drunk" is false.

You know the difference, and thus it is dis-ingenuous to equivocate by asserting that they are the "same" thing. They aren't, and you already know that.

 

Maybe you should look them up before speaking. They are both a form of intoxication. Buzzed is just as sinful as drunk period.

 

Precisely the difference between "buzzed" and "drunk"..........

A person who is "buzzed" is fully aware of the fact that they are "buzzed" and will surrender the keys to the vehicle willingly.......

"Drunks".......still think they are sober and will refuse.

That's the difference. And anyone familiar with it (who has sinned in that regard especially).....can readily know the difference.

The difference is as easy to spot as the difference between "The Message" and the "NIV".......
Neither are particularly "literal"...........but, one is vaguely similar to the original.........and the other is sheer crap.

 

that is true absolutely no where except in the drunk minds of those who want to defend getting "buzzed" themselves.

 

"Buzzed" and "legally".......are different depending upon which particular State of the Union you are in.........and similarly........it is different depending upon which particular Nation you are in if you speak of mere blood-alcohol content.......

There are MANY Nations....which have National laws which punish "drunk-driving" far more strictly than any given State in the U.S. does.........but their particular standard vis-à-vis blood-alcohol content doesn't necessarily match the rather self-serving ones generally reserved in American State laws.

"Drunk-Driving" is a State crime....not a Federal one in the U.S. Thus, their standards are not always the same in a legal context.

You can't equivocate the particular STATE regulations that you happen to be familiar with, with a general moral principle founded in Scripture.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.

 

"RevMitchell"...........+ 1 cup of coffee.......is a mind-altering state of affairs. "Rev" is no more the same "Rev" when I add the variable of (+1 cup of coffee). The difference is subtle indeed, but, it exists, and it's measurable. That standard means nothing in a vacuum, and by your own logic.....you are guilty of mind-altering druggings every day.

 

Do you know HoS?

 

I was about to mention the mind/mood altering effect of coffee, but you beat me to it.

I wonder how many people who believe alcohol consumption is sin abstain from caffeine.

 

Not arguing the point, but curious about your opinion: Do you believe that drinking coffee for its stimulating effect is sin?

 

I got a chuckle recalling a wreck on Forest Lane that happened some years ago.

A person had just gotten coffee with a breakfast sandwich from a certain fast food place, and in doing a u-turn to head the other way, tumped over the coffee. In reaching for the cup, they pulled hard right on the steering wheel and met the telephone pole.

That was one expensive cup of coffee!

But, more to the subject, there is no doubt that caffeine is an addictive substance, and just as any other addictive item (pornography, music, religion,...) the believer must be reminded that they are not to be given over to the control (usually indicated by, I have to have my morning coffee to wake up).

However, addictive does not equate to intoxicate.

Though both can be harmful when abused, the sole purpose of an intoxicant is to intoxicate.

The sole purpose to coffee (especially non-caffeinated) is to stimulate the brain so morning devotions actually are productive.

Of course, I could be like Thomas (stonewall) Jackson, and dunk my head in ice cold water every morning. Do you know he was most probably autistic?

 

And yet, caffeine can intoxicate if ingested in sufficient quantities.


Diagnostic criteria for 305.90 Caffeine Intoxication

http://behavenet.com/caffeine-intoxication


Not so sure thought about the decaf part, though.

 

And just to add, I do not believe the Word of God says that consuming alcohol is a sin.

As far as coffee goes, if you have drank enough and are now buzzed and are anything other than sober minded then you have a problem. However trying to compare coffee is a reach, No one becomes mentally impaired and cannot drive a vehicle because of coffee. Just looking for an excuse to get drunk.

 

I know two people who claim that they cannot handle regular coffee and say that they get (as one of them puts it) "squirrely-headed".