Featured Moderation is what helps- not teetotalism

Oh thats funny....now your agreeing with a mental case.:laugh:

 

Wow....you picked two out of how many....arent they on every street corner in the South....ubiquitous. [edited] I tell the truth. Ive never seen one [edited]
& certainly not where I live. And seriously, have you read what they are selling as a constitution.....please.

 

Stay where you are.....you really cant hurt yourself much & your insignificant to real Christianity.

 

Wanna go verse by verse?

 

EWF, you show on a consistent basis that you lack self control.

 

You have no cause to address me in this fashion. I am beholding to no one. I mentioned two SBC churches that I have personal knowledge of. Both are significant members in the Founders Movement. There are many other churches in that movement who place their emphasis on the gospel.

You need to be careful of violating the 9th commandment by assigning evil motives to your brothers in Christ.

I know you will not like this, but it is precisely because you are a brother in Christ that I am addressing this with you directly.

 

Starting with Romans 14. First four verses: (New Living Translation)

1 Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong.

2 For instance, one person believes it's all right to eat anything. But another believer with a sensitive conscience will eat only vegetables.

3 Those who feel free to eat anything must not look down on those who don't. And those who don't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them.

4 Who are you to condemn someone else's servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord's help, they will stand and receive his approval.​

And your calling them morons is somehow in accordance?

 

Notice it does not say all believers are weak in the faith, which in reality, prevents you from coming up with one unified rule on the subject.

I would recommend the second person order the vegetable plate at Cracker Barrel.

This has nothing to do with drinking in moderation. Also, notice the respect for the other group is a two way street, not just those who abstain. Abstainers are not to look down on those who drink in moderation. Sound familiar?

Again a two way street, Mr. Moses.

Kind of like calling someone an idiot, huh?

 

Could you point my rule out to me? I must have missed it.

Don't jump the gun. We'll get there.[/quote]

That's true, but a weakness is a deficiency, and, forebearance is no problem for one who is strong.

No one condemns a babe for crying when he poops his pants, but if a grown man?

 

Tell the arresting officer that you have only been drinking "in moderation" when he gives you a ticket for DUI.
Tell the same arresting officer that you don't take drugs, but the marijuana found in your car is for someone else who needs it.
(Same story could go for the cocaine too).

They were your parents. You lived in their house. They had every right to impose their will upon you. If your father was a preacher, and the minute you got out of his house and started drinking and rebelling, then you would have disqualified him from the ministry.
Depending how far you may have gone you may have already disqualified yourself. For example, did you simply have "sex in moderation"--just a few partners?

 

If someone receives a DUI they obviously have NOT been drinking in moderation. The law has measuring devices to determine precisely if you have been a moderate drinker or if you're drunk. It is measurable.

OK, now you're not making sense and are getting a bit off track.

Yep, getting way off track.

And officially derailed. Saturneptune stated there were things in the Bible that were clearly prohibited and others fell under the umbrella of moderation. Clearly, sex with multiple partners is a prohibited activity.

 

Is "drunkenness" measurable? No, it isn't.
That which is measurable is the % of alcohol in your blood system.
Here it used to be .08% But the government is clamping down even harder on driving and drinking. Perhaps eventually they will get to 0.0%. But it has been lowered to .05%. That is fairly low. Not every one with .05% alcohol in their blood will even look remotely drunk. In fact they will have drunk in moderation. But they will still get a ticket. Successive tickets affect insurance, higher ticket fines, and eventually your car being impounded.

 

Yet none of your point proves a thing as a Biblical mandate. Your system on drinking is man made and you're comparing laws about drinking and driving as if that proves your unbiblical stance.

Take also for instance the instructions to Gentiles in Acts 15:20, 29 & 21:25. Yep, that's right, not one mention of drinking. In addition, as previously mentioned, Paul did not rebuke the Corinthians for drinking whatsoever, but for drunkenness at the Lords Supper. He never uttered a word that drinking was wrong. In other words, he had a better grasp of Biblical allowances and truth concerning this than you have.

Your methods are man made and your arguments are purely your own words and thinking, and are not based upon the Word whatsoever, as others and myself have shown you time and again.

 

It is manmade. I took up this conversation with two Russian Baptist pastors today who are establishing churches here in the Usa & In the States. Here in the USA they allow for the liberty of a drink... but in the Eastern Block countries its a no no.

Why because they don't stop with one drink so where alcoholism is rampent they suppress it with church mandates. Makes sence ...but once again its a mechanism of that church...nothing in scripture.

 

This is absolutely true. Whenever doctrine is decided in the abscence of a clear biblical mandate it is egiltarianism. I think Aaron is the closest to admitting this. He uses the weaker brother defense for his anti-drinking theology, but I think he realizes it is not a mandate. It supports his personal scruple, not the biblical teaching. The fact is that I am fine with that, so long as it applies only to him.

 

Ohhhhhhh, aaaaaaaaa, oh too funny! Thanks for the laugh.

 

Actually in one guys case I don't tolerate stupidity. In fact I never have... but that's not the same thing.