Liberty! The Christian, wine and cigars?

russell55:
I'm back. I've studied some more, perhaps you can see something new!

Originally posted by russell55:

Click to expand...

"Ah, come on! It is the Kingdom of God that Jesus likens to leaven--not the tares in the kingdom God."

Answer
Leaven, according to all I can find, is mentioned 80 times in the Scripture. Two times it is mentioned with the same teaching in a parable - once by Matthew and once by Luke. Same instance, no question. Up to the time of the parable, as close as I can tell it was mentioned 61 times and they were all referrals to leaven as being a picture of sin. Nineteen times after the parable quoted above, leaven was a picture of sin. It is mighty thin ice to say that leaven is anything but a picture of sin.

Can you please advise us who or what the woman is a picture of?
What do the three measures of meal stand for?
Are you stipulating that the word "whole" stands for the world?
Can you show us any other verses that would verify your position that:
1) the kingdom of heaven is purposly hid?
2) the world is like three measures of meal?

The Book consistently speaks of the kingdom of heaven in this parable and you are calling it the kingdom of God. Are you doing this on purpose or is it a typo? If you are stipulating that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God is the same, please expound.
"You really must read your own presuppostion (leaven is always bad) into the text,making Jesus' words actually "The tare in the K of G are like leaven" rather than Jesus's actual words, which are "The K of G is like leaven", in order to come up with your interpretation."

Answer
My interpretation as I have already shown carries the weight of all the scriptures before and after.
My interpretation is upheld by the Law of 1st mention in proper Biblical interpretation. My interpretation is sustained by the Law of Contextual Consideration as I have already shown.

"The kingdom of God starts small, but eventually permeates the whole world."

I think this is part of your answer.

"Really! The twisting and turning of the plain text of scripture that is necessary to defend the abstinence for all side of this issue never ceases to amaze me."[/QB][/QUOTE]

Answer
If I twisted and turned the text of scripture, then I had to step over the Laws of Biblical interpretation mentioned above. "Abstinence for all" is not what I am proposing. "Imbibing for any" is what I am proposing. God hates leaven.
Thank you sir, you have helped me a great deal. Go ahead Brothers, drink up. Payday, Someday.

Originally posted by Bartimaeus:

Isn't yeast and leaven the same thing? Leaven is always a "type" of sin. Would passover wine be leavened?

Click to expand...

Passover wine was alcoholic; it was (and is) wine, not grape juice. Of course, fermentation involves yeast. It also kills the yeast. That's why if you want more than a certain level of alcohol you have to distill it. So no, the wine wasn't leavened.

[ April 10, 2002, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: A.J.Armitage ]

Bartimaeus,
You write:
" I may have been off point with that verse. There has been reference I believe that the Lord may have served alcoholic beverage. When he turned the water into wine, and departed,"

Scott asks:
Are you implying that Christ *did not* partake of wine? You insinuate that after the first miracle (strangely enough, for thousands of years it is known as a miracle and not a sin or stumbling block), Christ departed ? How have you come to this conclussion?

Also, from what you propose (leaven), Christ was involved in some sort of sin by serving the element.

Scott asks:
What do you mean by "payday someday?" Are you implying that those of us who imbibe without intention of becoming drunk are perishing? Have you not read chapter 12 of Hebrews? God chastens His children.....Christ has already paid the price! In case you've forgotten, payday was 2000 yrs ago @ Calvary's cross.

In His grace,
Scott

[ April 10, 2002, 06:50 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

Leaven, according to all I can find, is mentioned 80 times in the Scripture. Two times it is mentioned with the same teaching in a parable - once by Matthew and once by Luke. Same instance, no question. Up to the time of the parable, as close as I can tell it was mentioned 61 times and they were all referrals to leaven as being a picture of sin. Nineteen times after the parable quoted above, leaven was a picture of sin. It is mighty thin ice to say that leaven is anything but a picture of sin.

Click to expand...

I agree (and always have agreed) that leaven usually refers to something bad, but what something USUALLY means is not really all that important. What counts is what it means in the particular context we are talking about here.

Can you please advise us who or what the woman is a picture of?
What do the three measures of meal stand for?
Are you stipulating that the word "whole" stands for the world?

Click to expand...

This is a parable, not an allegory. No need to try to make it walk on all fours. Only important that we understand the point Jesus is using the parable to teach.

Can you show us any other verses that would verify your position that:
1) the kingdom of heaven is purposly hid?
2) the world is like three measures of meal?

Click to expand...

Don't think the point of the parable is necessarily that it is purposefully hidden--just that it starts small and grows to something big. Every single detail of a parable does not have to correspond to something.

The Book consistently speaks of the kingdom of heaven in this parable and you are calling it the kingdom of God. Are you doing this on purpose or is it a typo? If you are stipulating that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God is the same, please expound.

Click to expand...

No typo. Kingdom of God = kingdom of heaven. Luke recounts the same parable using "kingdom of God".

My interpretation as I have already shown carries the weight of all the scriptures before and after.
My interpretation is upheld by the Law of 1st mention in proper Biblical interpretation. My interpretation is sustained by the Law of Contextual Consideration as I have already shown.

Click to expand...

As I have said above, what a word means in most of scripture carries less weight than what it means in a particular context. And I really have very little respect for "law of first mention." A goofy hermaneutical rule, if you ask me. And as for context, lets look at that:

First of all, the parable of the field is not even recounted in the Luke account of these parables. If it was necessary to interpret the parable of the leaven properly, wouldn't Luke have included it? Did he leave it out by accident?

But since you are looking in Matthew, let's look at the context in Matthew.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field..."

The kingdom is like the man sowing GOOD SEED. Granted, the tares grow alongside; but this parable compares the kingdom to the good seed...

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed..."

The kingdom, like a mustard seed, starts really, really small, but grows over time to something gigantic.

And then we come to this--

"The kingdom of heaven is like leaven...."

Now, all of a sudden, even though the preceding parables compare the kingdom to something good, you want to take and compare it to something bad. Even though the parable of the good seed compares the kingdom to the GOOD SEED, you want to take and say that this parable is comparing the kingdom to sin--to the tares in the first parable.

I think it is obvious, from the context, that here, in this particular place, Jesus uses leaven to illustrate a good property of the kingdom--like the mustard seed in the parable before this, the kingdom starts as something seemingly insignificant, but grows (like leaven does) to something great.

You go Russell!

Scott, here are two URL's to respectable webpages that indicate that alcohol is hard on, if not damaging, to your liver. Naturally, the more one drinks the more this true. But the fact is that the liver has to strain to metabolize any alcohol.

www.health20-20.org/alcohol's_effect_on_the _liver.htm

www.niaa.nih.gov/publications/9942-text.htm

The statement, "...the Nazarite may drink wine" hardly suggests that, "Nazarites thought so highly of grapes and wine that they were to fast from it". If I'm fasting for a day I only drink water. That I don't drink milk or juice or pop during my fast doesn't mean that I think highly of, or crave, milk, juice and pop. It's just the way I fast.

What is your point in saying that the Pharisees called Jesus a "wino"? This by no means establishes that he drank wine. I have had meals many times with unsaved friends who drank, but I have never consumed alcohol myself. That the Pharisees were trying to slander Jesus by calling him a winebibber is all you can reasonably infer from their accusation. And their intense antagonism toward Jesus casts immediate doubt on all they say about him.

That John the Baptist did not drink alcohol seems to support my contention that holiness and alcohol do not mix.

That Jesus made wine for a wedding does not negate what I have said. That his miracle provided better wine than that which was initially available speaks to the quality of a divine miracle. It does not necessarily serve as license to drink wine.

Smoking is one thing that I believe is overlooked. I know of no cigarette smokers who are social smokers. They are all addicted to it. Sure if you could smoke one a day or a week it would be hard to call it sin but smoking is more than a bad habit. Smoking is an addiction and would seem to fit in with the lusts of the flesh because of it's addictive nature.

May I repeat myself?

Wine is a natural medicine and we are told to take some for the stomach's sake and other infirmities. If the reason for not drinking wine is the alleged liver damage, what about the many prescription drugs which are highly toxic and cause liver damage?

Should Christians not take the medicine prescribed by God but take those prescribed by men?

My step-father had cancer but the chemo-therapy killed him before the cancer did.
He was a tee-totaler.

HankD

Hank, do you drink wine strictly in medicinal amounts as Paul prescribes? Or do you use this verse to justify greater amounts of alcohol consumption?

That alcohol is hard on the liver is just one of several reasons why I think drinking is foolish (and a minor one at that). Paul places this issue under the most important question: Does it glorify God? "Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31) For more on my perspective see the other most recent threads on this topic.

God bless.

Paul places this issue under the most important question: Does it glorify God? "Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31)

Click to expand...

And I would say that as long as one drinks carefully and thankfully, it does indeed glorify God, who "causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the sevice of man. that He may bring forth food from the earth, and wine that makes glad the heart of man....."

Wine is a good gift from a good God, and it glorifies Him when it is treated as the good gift that it is.

Dear aiki,

You asked...

>>Hank, do you drink wine strictly in medicinal amounts as Paul prescribes? Or do you use this verse to justify greater amounts of alcohol consumption?>>

Currently I take a small glass of wine (1-4 ounces) as a medicine if I have an upset stomach or don't feel well. I also use wine in cooking, but of course the alcohol is cooked out of the spaghetti sauce within a minute or two leaving behind the enhanced flavor. A bottle of wine might last me 6 months to a year.

When I was a young man I abused alcohol before I was a Christian. After I was saved I quit smoking and getting drunk.

HankD

[ April 13, 2002, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

Aiki,
It's been a busy week, sorry it took so long for my reply.

You have provided me with two sources. The first one, from a *Seven Day Adventist group*: http://www.health20-20.org/links.htm

Personally, I would have chosen a better source.
This site is more of a religious site than medical. It is also more religious than Christian.

Their philosophy:
"Our philosophy in this web page is to make available information that is useful to you and helpful in your lifestyle. We believe in a " ministry of healing " by which we can be more nearly made whole. Our concept of "whole" involves "the whole person": spiritual, physical and mental. We also emphasize the prevention of diseases through simple lifestyle patterns that permit God’s restorative powers to work more effectively on our behalf .

Scott writes:
The ending statement almost implies that we can *get in the way of or enhance* Gods sovereign power in our lives. I would have definately worded this differently. I grant them the concept that men can be destructive with the responsibility of caring for and maintaining their bodies, but I cannot agree that by doing the opposite, we *augment* Gods work in regards to our health.
Whatever the case, we are dealing with another subject matter and I do not intend to be sidetracked with items that have been exhausted over the years.

One of their links:
http://www.health.org/nongovpubs/aldietguide/index.htm

This link from the site you provided states:
"Alcoholic beverages are harmful when consumed in excess.......Moderation is defined as no more than one drink per day for women and no more than two drinks per day for men.....Count as a drink- 12 ounces of regular beer (150 calories) 5 ounces of wine (100 calories) 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits (100 calories.....If you choose to drink alcoholic beverages, do so sensibly, and in moderation.
Limit intake to one drink per day for women or two per day for men, and take with meals to slow alcohol absorption."

Aiki,
The other link was *dead*. Here are a few links to some excellent sites:
http://content.nejm.org/
http://info.med.yale.edu/library/
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/medsch/

You write:
"The statement, "...the Nazarite may drink wine" hardly suggests that, "Nazarites thought so highly of grapes and wine that they were to fast from it"."

Scott responds:
Aiki, why did Jesus (in rebuke to the Pharisees) make mention that John the Baptist (Not presbyterian) did not partake of wine (because of his Nazarite vow) and He (Christ) did? The issue here of discussion was that Nazarites are abstinent of *wine/fruit of the vine* and Christ was the opposite. He fully partook.
Nazarites, after fulfilling their vow of abstinence, were allowed to partake of that which they had *intentionally* abstained from.
The passage in Numbers chapter 6 is conclusive.

Num 6:20 And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

Scott states:
The passage does not state that the Nazarite may eat meat, or drink milk or cut his hair. However, it does imply that the main restriction in his vow he may reaquaint himself with.

In scripture, Solomon is known as one of the worlds wisest men. Look how he describes the commodity. Mind you, it is in no way a negative expression.

Song 1:2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

Song 1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

Song 4:10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!

Song 5:1 I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.

Song 7:9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.

Song 8:2 I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate.

Look how Isaiah defines wine that is diluted.

Isa 1:22 Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water:

Scott states:
Wine mixed with water (diluted) is compared to silver that has become worthless.

Aiki asks:
What is your point in saying that the Pharisees called Jesus a "wino"? This by no means establishes that he drank wine.

Scott responds:
What do you think they drank at the Lords supper?
Do you truly believe that Christ did not partake of wine? If so, you know that this mindset is contrabiblical and most definately unorthodox. This idea is not *the norm*. Please ask your pastor.

You also state:
"That John the Baptist did not drink alcohol seems to support my contention that holiness and alcohol do not mix."

Scott replies:
Righteousness comes through Christ alone. It has never come through religiosity. The Essenes were severely restrictive. They would dig holes in the ground, climb inside, cover themselves with dirt (from the waist up) and commence to relieve themselves (deposit waste). This in no way brought them any closer to God. Tasks are just that. Fasting is a different issue all together. It is the heart that matters. The Nazarite fasted from produce of the vine. Dr. Lightfoot's conjecture was that this came from the Nazarites understanding (or misunderstanding) of Genesis, that the *tree of knowledge* was indeed a grapevine.

Aiki writes:
"That Jesus made wine for a wedding does not negate what I have said. That his miracle provided better wine than that which was initially available speaks to the quality of a divine miracle. It does not necessarily serve as license to drink wine"

Scott adds:
But Aiki, if partaking of wine is "less than holy" (or sin...the opposite of holy must be unholy), then from what you pose, not partaking must imply Holiness. So from this perspective, Christ was involved in making something that was *unholy*???

In HIM,
Scott

[ April 13, 2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

Interesting stuff, Scott. By the way, my only concern in providing those links was to have voices beside my own stating that alcohol is processed with difficulty by the liver. While their doctrine may be off, the Adventists made no false remarks concerning the effects of alcohol on the liver. Your complaints about their doctrine obscure that fact.

I know that small amounts of alcohol can be successfully processed by the body (large ones too), but it is still difficult for your liver to do so. Apparently, the by-products of metabolized alcohol are even more damaging than the alcohol itself. But, I'm sure you know that since you are a medical professional...

The point Christ was making when he rebuked the Pharisees for calling him a glutton and a winebibber was that the Pharisees were determined to find no behaviour acceptable, whether it was ascetic or accomodating, in those whose words eroded their power. The Pharisees were as Christ described, children who didn't know what game to play. It had very little to do with John the Baptist's Nazarite vow. And Christ's comments in this instance were not really directed toward whether or not he drank wine either. It's interesting that neither Matthew's nor Luke's account of this exchange of words says explicitly that Christ drank wine. Christ says he drank, but not what. Am I "straining at a gnat?"-- probably.

Now, about your preoccupation with the Nazarite vow in Numbers there is nothing you have said in your most recent post that makes what I said about it in my last post erroneous. You are having to make an assumption that Nazarites loved wine; it is certainly not conclusively stated in the phrase "the Nazarite may drink wine". I see how you have arrived at your conclusion but getting there is, IMO, rather a stretch.

Solomon doesn't describe wine in the verses you've given so much as he describes matrimonial love. In three instances he remarks that wine is inferior to this love. This doesn't strike me as particularly strong ground upon which to justify drinking wine...

I'm sure that Isaiah is correct: diluted wine tastes bad. So what?

I don't know conclusively that Jesus didn't drink wine at the Last Supper -- but you don't know conclusively that he did. "Fruit of the vine" could be the wine you think of, or that mildly fermented stuff that would take five times more than your bladder could hold before it made you drunk. It could've been far closer to fruit juice than to modern wines -- and there are those who believe it was. I guess what you believe may depend on what you want to drink.

If I am seeking to live a holy life as the apostle Peter commands (1 Pe. 1:15), I must "make no provision for the flesh", "avoid all appearance of evil", "walk circumspectly...redeeming the time", etc. It seems, from what you are saying regarding holiness, that none of this is necessary. I am not suggesting that we are justified by works, but that we do as we are commanded to do in scripture. You seem to be saying that these commands are ... unnecessary. I think I can best fulfill those scriptural commands I just mentioned by avoiding alcohol. It is a weight that I believe will hinder my spiritual race so I abstain. I did not say that drinking wine in moderation was sin or unholy, I said it hindered walking in a holy way and was foolish. Please read more carefully.

Do you suppose that all who attended that wedding feast and drank Christ's wine remained sober? Was helping to make them drunk a sin? The Bible expressly forbids drunkenness.

Hank, my paternal grandfather who killed himself was a vicious drunk. My third youngest brother is also an alcoholic and walking far from God. How strange it is that I can see the devastating effects of alcohol in the lives of these two loved ones and flee it while you, who once struggled with it, continue to accomodate its dangerous presence.

Leviticus 10:8-10 - "And the Lord spoke unto Aaron saying, 'Do not drink wine or strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation....that you may put difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean.' " Hmmm....

Thanks for the discussion! God bless.

Aiki, Bartemeus,
What both of you have proposed is fully contrabiblical. You have implied that it is sin to partake of that which God has blessed for His people. I grant you, most all believers in the Lord know that drunkeness is *sin*. But simple usage of this blessed commodity is in no way illicit. You will be hard pressed to support this claim. The harmony of scripture shows both sides to the coin. The negative aspects that can be brought on by wine and the positive benefits which can be obtained by respecting it's pleasing attributes. You have refused to look at the positive implications.
There are many.

Aiki,
You write:
"I know that small amounts of alcohol can be successfully processed by the body (large ones too), but it is still difficult for your liver to do so."

Scott responds:
I do not agree with this line of thinking. Again I state, every major medical review supports the usage of (particularly) red wine as a cholesterol lowering agent(amongst many other benefits). Your proposition is not supported by the medical world. Do you take tylenol? I understnd that there was study that implied that the liver struggled with processing that. How about the amazing, lifesaving benefits of what is known as *statins*(Lipitor,Baycol,Pravachol). Statins are drugs used to reduce cholesterol in subjects who *produce* cholesterol. Never,in so recent years has such a drug been discovered. The people who are candidates for this type of therapy cannot reduce cholesterol by natural means ie, exercise, diet etc. In general, those with predispositions towards high cholesterol and sclerotic vessel disease can now be victorious over a flaw in their genetic strand. By taking these drugs, the medical community has increased the life span of some people groups. The taking of these meds is tough on the liver. The subjects must be monitored for liver problems. Should we not take these drugs either? No, we should be responsible with them. Get tested regularly, see our docs when we are scheduled. Take the medicine as directed. Report ill effects. To cast this off , dut to its negative effects is ludicrous.

Scott adds:
The scriptures I have provided from the Song of Solomon are conclusive. Your failure to properly exegete this principle is quite interesting.
The value of wine is compared and used as a contrast to the love for each other.

Song 1:2 Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.

Song 1:4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee.

Song 4:10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!

Song 5:1 I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.

Song 7:9 And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak.

Song 8:2 I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother's house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate.

Psa 104:14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man : that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
Psa 104:15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man , and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.

Bartamaeus,
I (Scott) previously asked you:
"Are you implying that Christ *did not* partake of wine? You insinuate that after the first miracle (strangely enough, for thousands of years it is known as a miracle and not a sin or stumbling block), Christ departed. How have you come to this conclussion?"

You replied:
John 2:12 Although this verse does say that Christ left the area of the wedding, it does not say that he left immediately after making the wine . I will make sure in the future that I am careful about that point.

Scott replies:
Actually it says that Christ left *after* the wedding.

You then state:

The "moderate" drinker, the "casual" drinker is involved in that which carries with it destruction of the senses. A wise preacher once said, "There is something horrible in drink that steals away the brain, steals away the conscience,takes away modesty, takes away holy impulses in the mind and heart".

Scott adds:
I believe you have confused drunkiness with partaking.

I do not know how you have gleaned your perspective from the Habakkuk passage you pose. The passage states:

Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.
Hab 2:5 Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:

Scott states:
The man spoken of here is a man who has sinned by drunkeness and pride. It's most probably Belshazzar.

Finally:
What you pose is illicit and incorrect. It has no biblical grounds and is unorthodox. I suggest you rethink your position. May I suggest endeavoring to read some mainline commentaries for a few different ideas?

In HIS graces,
Scott
www.apuritansmind.com

[ April 14, 2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

Scott: Round and round we go...

It's somewhat amusing to me to read that you think I fail to exegete properly -- mainly because I was thinking the very same thing about you!

The true value of modern western medicine (specifically the chemical branch) is very much under question in my mind. Tylenol, and the various other "beneficial" drugs always seem to have too many accompanying side-effects. This is why I avoid them as much as possible. There seems to me to be a great difference between having a sip of wine and taking a drug that may save my life. I have lived a full, healthy life without ever taking a drop of wine or other strong drink. Never having sipped wine has made absolutely no difference to my life. I don't think I could or would say that about a drug that is specifically designed to prevent or forestall my imminent demise. This seems an obvious distinction to me...

Given the addictive potential and anaesthetic qualities of alcohol and its capacity to be a stumblingblock to others, I choose not to drink wine or any other alcoholic beverage. You have to ignore all these things, or place your right to drink above them, in order to be a wine drinker. This seems very imprudent to me.

It's peculiar and a little sad that we each think the other to be so fundamentally in error. Thank goodness for the illuminating work of God's Spirit. Without Him you've no hope of ever understanding this issue correctly. (Teasing! Just teasing!)

God bless.

Aiki,
You write:
It's somewhat amusing to me to read that you think I fail to exegete properly -- mainly because I was thinking the very same thing about you!

Scott states:
One of us is incorrect Aiki.
With all due respect, I do not fault you if you choose to fast from this element; that is your choice! However, in regards to whose idea is more sound, I have historical Christianity on my side. It is your view that is outside this lineage of historic orthodoxy. Most everyone *Knows* that one is not made holy by works. Partaking or not partaking is irrelevant.

Did not Jesus Himself state that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but that which comes out?

Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man:

Aiki,
Do you not yet understand?

Scott writes:
How about this verse?
1 Cor 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
1 Cor 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats:

And This one:
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Acts 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

In HIM,
Scott

[ April 18, 2002, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

Scott:

I think you've read more into what I have said about wine and holiness than is there. In Hebrews 12:1 Paul writes about sins and weights that easily beset us. Some things we do are clearly evil and impede our spiritual progress greatly and others, while not actually sinful, cause a drag on our spiritual life and growth. I think (for reasons I've already mentioned) that drinking alcohol falls into the latter category. I don't know why you can't understand this distinction.

Hi Aiki,
Ok then with that in mind, what other items can hinder? Foods? Television? Exercise? Sporting events?
My whole premise is just this, your idea of abstaining is just a personal choice. You choose not to partake because it may *hinder* you. There is a big difference in regarding this subject as sin. Many things then can be subject to this same scrutiny and not necessarily be biblical sin.

In HIM,
Scott