Champions of moderation- not abstinence

[saturneptune]

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?

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................................."

 

[agedman]

Hi aged :thumbs:

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

That is interestingly........derived from an example suggested by Paul (not an M.D.) for Timothy........this was not Luke speaking (an M.D.).

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.

As above......there is IMO no way to avoid this verse:
Deu 14:26 ... edited for space....

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Arbo]

Champions of moderation- not abstinence

I see we're into the summertime reruns.

 

[webdog]

Reminds me of White's tactic to try and tie Hunts view with Catholicism. Nothing but a poor attempt at a debate tactic.

And "buzzed" is not moderation its drunk.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Reminds me of White's tactic to try and tie Hunts view with Catholicism. Nothing but a poor attempt at a debate tactic.

And "buzzed" is not moderation its drunk.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

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.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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

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

 

[Inspector Javert]

Maybe you should look them up before speaking

.
Huh?....."Look them up"?........I know the difference already......I've been both more than once. I'm willing to bet you have too. What does this statement mean? "Look them up"?.......you mean in a Dictionary? Oh, OK........I'll consult a Webster's for the differentiation between "drunk" and "buzzed".

They are both a form of intoxication.

Yes, they are; tell us something else we don't already know. What you fail to recognize, is that you used the word "BOTH" meaning, then, that they are NOT the SAME thing..but easily and recognizably differentiated. Just as I said before:

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".

Buzzed is just as sinful as drunk period

Fine.........but, no one has argued that point with you. Please define and point to the specific person who has defended the proposition that being "buzzed" is NOT a sin, and then you will have someone to argue with.

I haven't said it. The OP didn't say it. No one so far has said that being "buzzed" is not sin.........so, what's your point?

 

[Inspector Javert]

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.

"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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

"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.

 

[kyredneck]

"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?

 

[Inspector Javert]

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.

LOL :laugh: You are Dead-on here.........I was hoping you wouldn't catch that, but you did. :thumbs: I am not sure that Luke was a companion of Paul AT THE TIME, but, if he was......(I simply don't know) than your argument stands. Nice one my brother. :thumbs:

You have posted well. I would like to rejoinder you point/counter-point later if I may...You raise a good issue. Was Luke a "companion" of Paul when he wrote that epistle to Timmy?....If he was (I dunno) than your post defeats my argument roundly.

 

[Arbo]

"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.

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.

 

[Arbo]

Buzzed is just as sinful as drunk period.

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

 

[agedman]

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.

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?

 

[Arbo]

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.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[Arbo]

No one becomes mentally impaired and cannot drive a vehicle because of coffee.

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".