Champions of moderation- not abstinence

[Luke2427]

http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_e949068a-a08f-11e2-baa0-0019bb2963f4.html






http://www.duifoundation.org/news/minister-kills-prosecutor-in-dui-crash.html




http://gradycounty.kfor.com/news/crime/88284-pastor-arrested-dui-assault-charges




I know this only a small sample, but it shows you that drinking in public has its consequences.

The title of this post is "with moderation could come incarceration".

I cannot begin to tell you how ridiculous that is! It is once again nothing more than another empty cute turn-of-phrase. It rhymes and sounds cool, so it must be substantive. This type of hayseed, bumper sticker theology is killing the church in this culture. It really is. And I am not ridiculing country folks. As the old man said, "I ARE one." I just walked in the front door of my house from chasing my chickens off of their new roost on my tool shelf. I live in South Mississippi. I hunt, fish, eat collard greens, etc... And I know a lot of VERY sharp and biblically erudite country folks with no seminary education. But they do not LEAN on hayseed, backwater thinking. These are people who are not trying to sound hayseed in order to project some kind of mythical backwoods wisdom.

This turn of phrase, cute, backwater, hayseed, empty preaching needs to stop.

MODERATION did not cause a single thing you mentioned in that post.

We are not talking about IMMODERATION, Willis. Stay on topic, please.

We are advocating the dead level OPPOSITE of IMMODERATION- we are advocating MODERATION.

In order to contribute to a conversation about a topic you have to actually STAY ON THAT TOPIC.

 

[saturneptune]

Luke,
I would try to talk about moderation from a different angle. I grew up as a Presbyterian in Mississippi (Gulfport), and the one key word for life style issues was moderation. When I became a Baptist 25 years later, one of the differences I noticed was that in several areas, moderation had become abstinence. Of course, the most glaring one, and the one that has had thread after thread is drinking. I do not drink, but still hold to the Presbyterian view of that subject.

Then, there are areas where there is unwritten abstinence in many local churchs, such as dancing, lottery tickets, movies, playing cards and a list that is just too long to list. I do not dance, nor do I buy lottery tickets, but here is why. I look like a klutz dancing, and got better things to do with my money than buy lottery tickets. I still hold that those things fall under moderation. In other words, it is not any of my business what you or the guy down the street feels about dancing.

This mindset is half of what gives Baptists a harsh reputation. In fact, after serving in a Baptist church for 35 years, some areas that Presbyterians do not have a problem with, Baptists do not feel the need for moderation, such as stuffing ones gut at a pot luck and laughing about it. Another area where Baptists seem not to feel the need for moderation, or actually in this case, it should be abstaining, is gossip. It is overlooked with a wink and a nod. I related this in another thread some time back, but years ago, I saw a 350 pound man (at least) stuffing his mouth food at a rapid pace. While doing so, he was trying to convey a message of seeing another church member that had gone to a dance the previous Saturday night. That is a point in time that is a great learning lesson.

The reason I am still a Baptist is not the area that this thread covers, believe me. My reason for being a Baptist is the way we baptize, the local church, and no hierarchy.

When it comes to what you all refer to as vices in daily living calls for guidance of the Holy Spirit, Scripture, and common sense. It also requires that the individual not grow a ten foot nose and mind their own business. If there is a prohibition against something, the Lord makes it quite clear. Again, common sense. There is no moderation in murder and adultery for example.

Anyway, that is my two cents worth.

 

[preacher4truth]

Brother Rob, I can honestly say that I have grown immensely since May 24, 2077 at approx 01:30 am. When I was saved, I was KJVO(now KJVP, for me that is), a "tee-totaller, and that God was God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in a "Jesus only fashion".....iow, I had a faulty view of the Triune God. Over time, I began to change my view from the "God only" view, to a view that God was God, Jesus wasn't God, but the Son of God(again, not God, but the Son) and the Holy Ghost was the Holy Ghost and not God. Again, another faulty view of the Triune God. I then finally came to realize I was wrong(there was a time I told people that Jesus wasn't God, but the Son, and was proud of my "new found knowledge"), but thanks to you guys on here, I began to see I was wrong about not drinking in moderation, my faulty views on the Trinity, and my stance on KJVO. I came to here to learn, and I have grown much whilst on here. The sad part is some come on here to show their "theological clout" on here, but only end up showing something else, and I am NOT talking about their "theological clout", either.

I hear ya, sometimes we have to look past their personality and read what they say. And sometimes we just gotta completely ignore some! :laugh:

 

[convicted1]

I hear ya, sometimes we have to look past their personality and read what they say. And sometimes we just gotta completely ignore some! :laugh:

That which I bolded, truer words could never be expressed. I love to interact with people on here, and our theological differences aren't the hinderances.

 

[Oldtimer]

A couple of reasons:

1. Stupidity is never contained within a vacuum. Teetotalism is stupidity. It affects others. The reason there ARE so many weaker brethren who people with good biblical sense CANNOT enjoy liberty around is because of the plague of ignorant teetotalism thought dominant within churches of our culture. People with good sense can't enjoy liberty anywhere in this culture because there are so many weaker brethren around here made weaker by ignorant, backwater, fundamentalist thinking. We ought to beat back ignorance for that reason.

If I can show you how stupid it is, then maybe you will not spread that ignorance to others who would rob many other Christians with good sense from enjoying their liberty.

2. This is a debate site. That's what we are supposed to do here. Hello?

Why do you have to resort to such demeaning phrases when you bring up a topic for debate? Did you start this to give yourself a platform to do just that? You speak of "moderation". Wouldn't that include a little moderation in your tone?

You said "Teetotalism is stupidity." Tell that to 2 pastors that I know who will not take a single drink of booze. They put down the bottle somewhere along the path that brought them to the pulpit. Tell that to a lost person who has lost a loved one because of actions of a drunk.

You speak of our culture and of other countries. Culture elsewhere doesn't matter. We have to work with the culture of the peoples physically surrounding us. Where I live the "culture" watches who goes to the ABC store situated in the middle of our small town shopping center. When the town drunks enter, the "culture" doesn't pay much attention, because that's an expected action. When a professing Christian enters, "culture" raises an questioning eyebrow. When a pastor enters, both eyebrows rise in shock.

Culture = both saved and lost individuals with their own perceptions of God and the scriptures. Whether those perceptions are right or wrong doesn't matter, in this context. What matters is the reality of what they believe to be true. And, thus, how they react to what is contrary to what they believe to be true.

Culture, right HERE, expects a certain level of separation from what culture views as being worldly. Doesn't matter if it's drinking in bars, visiting our local "massage" parlor or attending a gay pride event. Lost souls are going to ask why Christians don't practice what they preach. How can a preacher stand in the pulpit on Sunday morning when I saw him buy a case of beer at Food Lion on Saturday?

The vast majority of lost souls are not in church on Sunday morning. The vast majority of those souls are watching the actions of church members from 12:01 Sunday afternoon, till the next Sunday morning. What happens inside the church walls - ie that particular culture - has no impact on their perceptions. Doesn't matter if the preacher condems all fermented beverages, preaches moderation, or whatever. The lost families living around the church don't hear the message. Thus, their perception of "Christian" culture doesn't change.

For the record, I don't drink. Can't stand the taste of the stuff. However, that does not mean that I condem a man for drinking a beer after mowing grass on a hot day. Nor, do I condem a man who believes that it is best to stay away from fermented beverages. The 2 pastors mentioned earlier, do everything the can to urge young people not to take the first drink. The first sip that can put them on the road to becoming drunks.

Long winded post. Yes.
One more point. Yes.

Last year, spent several months working with a man being prompted by the Holy Spirit. Physically working with him which gave the opportunity to be a witness. He knew I don't drink. Asked, one HOT summer day, if I'd be mad with him for drinking a beer. Sensed that his question was far deeper than what it appeared on the surface. Answer was no. Didn't see anything wrong with drinking a beer after we finished work. Answer was, too, (summarized) hoped he wouldn't choose to get drunk.

Next day he told me he drank two beers. It was clear that he was testing to see I'd bring any self-rightous condemnation upon him. Long story short. He's showing evidence of his faith since he joined our church. Whether he still drinks a beer or not, I don't know. Haven't asked. That's between him and our Lord.

 

[saturneptune]

OT,
You have a very healthy view of drinking. As you said, appearance is a big part of the equation, probably bigger than the Biblical argument. Common sense goes a long way.

 

[Aaron]

One of the things that hurts our witness in this world is our gnostic tendency to demand abstinence of so many things.

For the most part, modern Christian fundamentalists are little more Gnostics- believing that matter is evil and spirit is good and therefore we should abstain from most physical pleasures like drinking alcohol and just be super-spiritual meditating upon spiritual things like monks all day.

But Christianity, in its real form uncorrupted by backwards fundamentalism, is the champion of moderation- not abstinence.

Ours is not a religion of "taste not, touch not." It is one of "Enjoy the goodness of God in all things- but enjoy it in moderation so that you don't corrupt the experience."

Drunkards do not enjoy drinking like moderate drinkers do. Addiction, hangovers, and a thousand other things that come with the ABUSE of alcohol RUINS the experience.

So, simple-minded Christians come along, always needing things to be simple, avoiding the real complexity of many issues like the plague because they are intimidated by it, and they just BAN it.

How much better to model moderation than abstinence!

I love what C. S. Lewis says about this matter in Mere Christianity:

Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second Cardinal virtue was christened 'Temperance,' it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons�Cmarriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.

Yeah. That sounds exactly like Paul who would eat no meat as long as the earth stood if it caused his brother to offend.

No, wait—Paul sounds just like a Mohammedan.

(rolls eyes)

 

[Inspector Javert]

One of the things that hurts our witness in this world is our gnostic tendency to demand abstinence of so many things.

For the most part, modern Christian fundamentalists are little more Gnostics- believing that matter is evil and spirit is good and therefore we should abstain from most physical pleasures like drinking alcohol and just be super-spiritual meditating upon spiritual things like monks all day.

But Christianity, in its real form uncorrupted by backwards fundamentalism, is the champion of moderation- not abstinence.

Ours is not a religion of "taste not, touch not." It is one of "Enjoy the goodness of God in all things- but enjoy it in moderation so that you don't corrupt the experience."

Drunkards do not enjoy drinking like moderate drinkers do. Addiction, hangovers, and a thousand other things that come with the ABUSE of alcohol RUINS the experience.

So, simple-minded Christians come along, always needing things to be simple, avoiding the real complexity of many issues like the plague because they are intimidated by it, and they just BAN it.

How much better to model moderation than abstinence!

I love what C. S. Lewis says about this matter in Mere Christianity:

Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words that has changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second Cardinal virtue was christened 'Temperance,' it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons�Cmarriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.

:applause::applause:
Hi everyone! I have to agree with the OP here:

Teetotalers are so common in the U.S. in part because of a checkered history of abuse of liquor rather than the habitual moderate use of drinks such as beer and wine which are so common and regular in other parts of the world.

ABUSE of alcohol was so prevalent in the frontier past of the 19th Century (usually whiskey) that alcohol itself was perceived as the "evil" rather than the person who misused it. Moreover, American whiskey is immediately attached to illegal import and export due to "whiskey taxes" etc...from the colonial period onward such that rebellion of sorts was the immediate context of American liquor use. From the time of the Revolution---American alcohol was immediately associated with moonshining and boot-legging.

Most people have a hard time divorcing their thinking about an issue from their immediate experience. The American historical experience as pertains to alcohol is one which ranges straight from British tax-evading "boot-legging" and the "Whiskey Rebellion" just after the Nation was founded right up to Carrie Nation and her obsessive tee-totallism.

Teetotalism's logic is no different than considering a DvD player to be inherently evil because some people play pornography on it, or even the internet for that matter.
"Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation"
St. Augustine

 

[Aaron]

Teetotalism's logic is no different than considering a DvD player to be inherently evil because some people play pornography on it, or even the internet for that matter.

blah, blah, blah.

When speaking of wine, we are speaking of something explicitly identified in the Scriptures as a legitimate and vital matter of conscience.

So the argument isn't about wine or beer. It's about your belly or your brother and which you love more.

 

[Inspector Javert]

blah, blah, blah.

When speaking of wine, we are speaking of something explicitly identified in the Scriptures as a legitimate and vital matter of conscience.

So the argument isn't about wine or beer. It's about your belly or your brother and which you love more.

O.K.....so apply the statement specifically and exclusively to wine if you so choose. That's immaterial. Consider it "teetotalism" from wine only if that's what you prefer. The statement then, still holds.

 

[SolaSaint]

A couple of reasons:

1. Stupidity is never contained within a vacuum. Teetotalism is stupidity. It affects others. The reason there ARE so many weaker brethren who people with good biblical sense CANNOT enjoy liberty around is because of the plague of ignorant teetotalism thought dominant within churches of our culture. People with good sense can't enjoy liberty anywhere in this culture because there are so many weaker brethren around here made weaker by ignorant, backwater, fundamentalist thinking. We ought to beat back ignorance for that reason.

If I can show you how stupid it is, then maybe you will not spread that ignorance to others who would rob many other Christians with good sense from enjoying their liberty.

2. This is a debate site. That's what we are supposed to do here. Hello?

I would say when you throw words like stupidity and ignorant at people you don't even know, it diminishes your voice. You sound more fundamental than the teetotalers.

 

[Aaron]

O.K.....so apply the statement specifically and exclusively to wine if you so choose. That's immaterial. Consider it "teetotalism" from wine only if that's what you prefer. The statement then, still holds.

Was I that unclear? Beer/wine or not beer/wine isn't the argument. The argument is your belly or your brother.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Was I that unclear? Beer/wine or not beer/wine isn't the argument. The argument is your belly or your brother.

The point of the OP.....is that the teaching of "abstinence" vs. moderation is the ONLY reason that the argument is "belly or brother". The point of the OP, is that that is an argument that we should not HAVE to have. It shouldn't be an either/or dichotomy (except perhaps in certain circumstances) but rather a both/and. It pertains to more than merely booze. If, for instance, one can occasionally enjoy a fine cigar in certain moderate social settings, then it shouldn't be a situation where it MUST be a "belly or brother" issue. Rather, unless your weaker brother is incapable of dealing with it (for reasons other than insisting on asceticism).....than blessings of that sort should be able to be enjoyed in moderation.

I think that's the point of the O.P.

 

[Luke2427]

The point of the OP.....is that the teaching of "abstinence" vs. moderation is the ONLY reason that the argument is "belly or brother". The point of the OP, is that that is an argument that we should not HAVE to have. It shouldn't be an either/or dichotomy (except perhaps in certain circumstances) but rather a both/and. It pertains to more than merely booze. If, for instance, one can occasionally enjoy a fine cigar in certain moderate social settings, then it shouldn't be a situation where it MUST be a "belly or brother" issue. Rather, unless your weaker brother is incapable of dealing with it (for reasons other than insisting on asceticism).....than blessings of that sort should be able to be enjoyed in moderation.

I think that's the point of the O.P.

yes. You are right.

 

[Aaron]

The point of the OP.....is that the teaching of "abstinence" vs. moderation is the ONLY reason that the argument is "belly or brother". The point of the OP, is that that is an argument that we should not HAVE to have. It shouldn't be an either/or dichotomy (except perhaps in certain circumstances) but rather a both/and. It pertains to more than merely booze. If, for instance, one can occasionally enjoy a fine cigar in certain moderate social settings, then it shouldn't be a situation where it MUST be a "belly or brother" issue. Rather, unless your weaker brother is incapable of dealing with it (for reasons other than insisting on asceticism).....than blessings of that sort should be able to be enjoyed in moderation.

I think that's the point of the O.P.

Besides being wrong, it's probably not a point that should be argued by one who has admitted to an inordinate apetite.

 

[Luke2427]

Why do you have to resort to such demeaning phrases when you bring up a topic for debate? Did you start this to give yourself a platform to do just that? You speak of "moderation". Wouldn't that include a little moderation in your tone?

Yes. That's not a bad point.

You said "Teetotalism is stupidity." Tell that to 2 pastors that I know who will not take a single drink of booze. They put down the bottle somewhere along the path that brought them to the pulpit. Tell that to a lost person who has lost a loved one because of actions of a drunk

.

Stay on topic please. EVERYONE is against drunkenness. This is about MODERATION which is the dead level OPPOSITE of drunkenness.

You speak of our culture and of other countries. Culture elsewhere doesn't matter. We have to work with the culture of the peoples physically surrounding us. Where I live the "culture" watches who goes to the ABC store situated in the middle of our small town shopping center. When the town drunks enter, the "culture" doesn't pay much attention, because that's an expected action. When a professing Christian enters, "culture" raises an questioning eyebrow. When a pastor enters, both eyebrows rise in shock.

Then it ought to be our goal to rid the culture of the erroneous thinking that makes people react in such ways.

Liberty is a very good thing. God gives it to us to enjoy. We should not sit back and let the popularity of Billy Sunday from 100 years ago put the church in bondage.

 

[agedman]

There is a case for consumption of an intoxicant in which the Scriptures allow.

I hold that it must be under the oversight of medical folk and for medical purposes.

I hold that is the view of the Scriptures.

However, believers that consume intoxicants for pleasure don't hold that view.

I suppose if I held to some posts on this thread, I could rightly call them "stupid" but then why be so critical of a weaker brother.

What I wanted to ask is if any of those who regularly partake of intoxicants would drink the water in some third world nation such as in Africa or South America where the water is not purified to US standards?

Why would I ask that?

Because Paul said, "Take NO THOUGHT about what you eat or drink..."

It also seems to me that all caution over "belly size" and "liberty" would be discarded by what Paul was stating.

If the OP is correct then every believer should live to the fullest liberty - which is in itself excess - though some would claim it as expressing moderation.

Believer "liberty" is not ever unbounded from the shackles of testimony and the chains of reputation.

Folks, Paul handled the conflicting views of his day on dietary matters in this passage. It would be better if those believers who consumed or did not consume intoxicants would heed it.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin."​

See, it isn't a matter of "personal liberty" or even "weaker brother." It comes down to testimony and reputation.

Frankly, I see no good coming from drinking - even a little - outside of what the medicinal case may be.

Those of you who do - fine.

But do not claim that the Scripture does not hold you accountable and that such is without consequence.

This thread is on moderation.

But so far those who have expressed "abstinence" seem to have shown more moderation than even the one who posted the OP. But that is just my own observation.

 

[Jerome]

Luke, doesn't your own SBC advocate abstinence? So I'm puzzled at why you're fixating on us Fundamentalist Baptists instead. Why don't you take your alco-pologist views before any Southern Baptist denominational gathering and see how that goes over?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Hi aged :thumbs:

"Moderation" is not strictly about intoxicants, but since this is brought up brother let's use that example.

There is a case for consumption of an intoxicant in which the Scriptures allow.
I hold that it must be under the oversight of medical folk and for medical purposes.
I hold that is the view of the Scriptures.

That is interestingly........derived from an example suggested by Paul (not an M.D.) for Timothy........this was not Luke speaking (an M.D.). I've always honestly thought that if God intended to relegate such use sheerly for medical purposes, than he would likely have utilized his M.D. for the prescription and not his Th.D. (That's somewhat of a conjecture of course.)

However, believers that consume intoxicants for pleasure don't hold that view.

As above......there is IMO no way to avoid this verse:
Deu 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Translation of "oxen or for sheep" = "fine dining"
Translation of "wine or strong drink" = booze
Translation of "desireth" = "purely for pleasure"
Translation of "rejoice" = "party"

That's the passage.......and it suggests something about the issue with Christians that is hard for us to grasp: I believe it was Chesterton who said something to the effect that the problem with Christians is not an inability to rightly deal with PAIN......but, that we don't rightly deal with PLEASURE.

The context of that passage is "rejoicing" and enjoying and doing so "before the Lord himself"
Deu 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God
vs. 29 ends thus:
....and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.
Temperance and Moderation are virtues.......and they require discipline........LOTS of discipline. But, that discipline CANNOT be learned in a society which advocates sheer asceticism. Asceticism is essentially DEFEAT. It is accepting that the Spirit cannot teach us the virtue of Temperance and moderation.

What I wanted to ask is if any of those who regularly partake of intoxicants would drink the water in some third world nation such as in Africa or South America where the water is not purified to US standards?

NO...... I wouldn't......and that's probably exactly why Paul was telling Timothy to drink wine.....It's because Paul didn't want Timothy drinking the foul water in that part of the world either. That is why Timothy had stomach issues. It was common knowledge at the time. Hence, nearly everyone laced their water consumption with (a small) percentage of alcohol.

Believer "liberty" is not ever unbounded from the shackles of testimony and the chains of reputation.

"Testimony" and "Reputation" are only issues in an obsessively tee-totaling and forbidding society. I have travelled (personally) to numerous parts of the world, and even in the U.S. wherein the mere fact that I was NOT a teetotaler nor an ascetic STRENGTHENED my testimony (that's just a fancy word for "street-cred") and people who would NOT listen to abstainers actually listened to what I had to say.
I'll repeat that.........
I have been able to witness to many BECAUSE I do not obsess over abstaining.

See, it isn't a matter of "personal liberty" or even "weaker brother." It comes down to testimony and reputation.

Have you ever seen the sitcom "The Office"?
"Angela"......is precisely how modern conservative Christianity is often viewed:
Hypocritical and random and somewhat farcical.............the abstentionism is HURTING our witness to the world....not helping it.
Modern "Christianity" has boiled-down (in the minds of many) to a set of "don't drink, don't cuss or go out with boys who do".....and frankly it's becoming a BAD witness......NOT a good one. It's become a pure joke.

But do not claim that the Scripture does not hold you accountable and that such is without consequence.

Do tell this personage who has heretofore suggested that such is "without consequence" and I shall be on that individual like white on rice.

This thread is on moderation.

A very difficult discipline which is incumbent upon Spirit-filled believers to learn.

 

[Oldtimer]

Yes. That's not a bad point.

Stay on topic please. EVERYONE is against drunkenness. This is about MODERATION which is the dead level OPPOSITE of drunkenness.

Then it ought to be our goal to rid the culture of the erroneous thinking that makes people react in such ways.

Liberty is a very good thing. God gives it to us to enjoy. We should not sit back and let the popularity of Billy Sunday from 100 years ago put the church in bondage.

Allright -- On topic! :flower: Tell the 2 pastors who are recovering alcholics that drinking in moderation is OK. Tell a lost person, who has had loved ones die from alcohol related causes, that drinking in moderation is OK.

Next, I beg to respectfully disagree. Being totally free of alcohol is the "dead level OPPOSITE of drunkenness". Moderation is sitting on the fence between the two opposites. Rarely ever dead center. Usually leaning to either the right or left, depending on how much ethanol has been consumed.

Shouldn't people set goals that can reasonably be expected to be achieved? Why should I set a goal to climb Mt Everest when it's very unlikely that I'll ever set eyes upon that mountain? Regardless of how lofty we may set our goal, in this case, there's one question outstanding. How do we go about ridding any culture of anything that makes people react as they do? Battles have raged over trying to change cultures since God barred the gates of Eden.

IMO. Our goal, in 3 parts, should be as follows:
1. Love God.
2. Love our neighbors as ourselves.
3. Take the gospel to the lost.

Why do you think the scriptures are filled with references to narrow paths and gates? Our commission isn't to change culture. Our commission is to bring, as many as we can, out of the culture of the world and into a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ. To plant seeds for the Holy Spirit to nuture.

On an individual level, we, each as believers, cannot change culture. Only God can do that. We can only affect SOME of those with our sphere of influence when we cast our seeds and utter our prayers.

Yes, liberty is a good thing. Whether civil liberty or spiritual liberty each carrys a heavy responsibility with regards to choices we make while using our freedom. Within this context, shouldn't every choice we make, in everything we do or say be an earnest, heartfelt, attempt to bring glory to God? Remember He's the 1st of the 3 goals that should be on our list. In some circumstances, our very best efforts of moderation will fail miserably if/when we put a stumbling block in the path of another.