Drinking Alcohol Moderately

[Siberian]

The Bible teaches MODERATION and condemns abuse/drunkeness. Christians used the word TEMPERANCE (same thing) to fight the abuse of alcohol in the industrialized countries in the 1800's.

Man-made rules shifted from the Biblical MDOERATION into the policy of ABSTINENCE in the 20th Century. Fine with me for anyone who wants to follow total abstinence from alcohol.

But don't parade like it is BIBLICAL to abstain. It is a personal life-style choice.

Well said! Christians have every right to totally abstain from alcohol. That is an honorable way to live. However, Christians do not have the right to insist that other Christians totally abstain. How can we prohibit what the Bible clearly allows?

All of the arguments which attempt to prove abstinence from the Bible are far less than compelling (the ones that I have read in this thread and everywhere else). Indeed, they often dance around the plain meaning of verses and words and employ fanciful historical theories (as in the case of Norman Geisler's oft-quoted BibSac article where he asserts that wine in biblical times was near non-alcoholic).

Further, nearly all articles, sermons, and popularly-employed arguments insisting on abstinence (as a Bible doctrine) make absolutely no distinction between drunkenness and the consequences of the abuse of alcohol and alcohol itself. (e.g., Jerry Vines and his sermon, The Baptist and His Booze). That is devastating, as the Bible only condemns drunkenness, not alcohol.

Why is the moderate use of alcohol such a debate in American Christian circles? It seems to me to be a petty little distraction from truly important things.

 

[annsni]

Why is the moderate use of alcohol such a debate in American Christian circles?

I don't know. I think part of it is cultural and part is tied into something historic but it's certainly not based in scripture.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I can handle it. (hic) I am drot nunk. (hic)

Moderation, (as most call it today) is throw around as if the Spirit gives man liberty to sin.

Slippery slope fallacy. It ignores the vast majority of people who actually do drink moderately, most getting drunk no more often than you are a glutton.

Alcohol is toxic to the organs of the body. That is why it is called an intoxicant.

Fallacy of definition. Alcohol can be toxic if not used in moderate, hence why one is not "intoxicated" unless they are past the point of moderate use.

Besides, toxicity is defined by observation and study, not by word root meanings. Better to show a study which indicates that alcohol is toxic if used in moderation. But, not surprisingly, no such study is cited. Instead a fallacy must be resorted to.

The word moderation is only found one time in the Bible. Philippians 4:5. And it is not giving liberty to drink toxic chemicals. Eating and drinking are not even in the context of Philippians 4:5.

So many want to claim the Bible allows for drinking in moderation. I don't see it. From what I can see, every verse that speaks of an alcoholic wine, God tells us to steer away from it.

False. Untrue. You simply say this only because you beg the question. There are many verses which affirm the use of alcohol. You simply make an a priori assumption - one not supported by historical study, or Hebrew and Greek authorities - that these all must refer to non-alcoholic drink. So its not that there are no positive references to alcohol, its that you fallacious exclude such passages from consideration. Fallacy of begging the question and circular reasoning.

Conversely, you ignore the fact that negative references to alcohol are in the context of misuse.

I'll choose to obey God on this one.

Actually, you simply choose to use sound reasoning and interpretation. You further compound this error by taking a legalistic position.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Benefits such as cirrhosis of the liver? peptic ulcers? benefits such as chronic weight loss? bleeding disorders?

And the ultimate benefit... death.

I can see why so many want to drink it.

NONE of which result from moderate use of alcohol. Again, the fallacy of the slippery slope.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

OK - Let's look at the whole thing and I'll change words to make it Biblically accurate:






You have just proven that God did not command His people to abstain - so you are not obeying Him but your own man-made standards.

Your whole premise falls through considering the fact that alcohol is not fruit. Alcohol is a toxic chemical that destroys brain cells, vital organ, homes and lives.

Alcohol is an instrument that man uses to defile the body. And he that defiles the body God will destroy.

 

[Siberian]

Alcohol is a toxic chemical that destroys brain cells, vital organ, homes and lives.

Alcohol is an instrument that man uses to defile the body. And he that defiles the body God will destroy.

Actually, it is the abuse of alcohol that destroys brain cells, vital organs, homes and lives and defiles the body. There is nothing intrinsically evil or wrong about alcohol. And there are many good gifts that God has given that, when misused, cause unrepairable damage (food, intimate relations, etc.). Blaming the gift which is misused shifts the blame.

The Bible teaches clearly that God has given wine to gladden the heart of man. (Ps 104.15). If you hold to a high view of Scripture, how can you ignore this?

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Actually, it is the abuse of alcohol that destroys brain cells, vital organs, homes and lives and defiles the body. There is nothing intrinsically evil or wrong about alcohol. And there are many good gifts that God has given that, when misused, cause unrepairable damage (food, intimate relations, etc.). Blaming the gift which is misused shifts the blame.

The Bible teaches clearly that God has given wine to gladden the heart of man. (Ps 104.15). If you hold to a high view of Scripture, how can you ignore this?

After taking only small quantities of alcohol, trained typists were tested and their errors increased 40 percent. Only one ounce of alcohol increases the time required to make a decision by nearly 10 percent; hinders muscular reaction by 17 percent; increases errors due to lack of attention by 35 percent. —Paul Harvey

Just one ounce... one ounce affects the thinking process and reflexes.

So much for your theory.

Wine that makes glad the heart of man was non alcoholic.

 

[Siberian]

Wine that makes glad the heart of man was non alcoholic.

There is no serious exegetical or historical support for this idea.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Your whole premise falls through considering the fact that alcohol is not fruit. Alcohol is a toxic chemical that destroys brain cells, vital organ, homes and lives.

Not if used in moderation.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

There is no serious exegetical or historical support for this idea.

Sure there is. Jesus went to a wedding feast where there would be joy and merriment because of the bridegroom getting married.

He provided an over abundance of non alcoholic wine, of which some was given to the governor of the festivities. The governor was elated that this, the best wine was saved until last.

This event occurred 3 days after Jesus was baptized by John.

 

[Jerome]

Actually, you simply choose to use sound reasoning and interpretation. You further compound this error . . .

Using sound reasoning and interpretation is an error?

 

[dwmoeller1]

After taking only small quantities of alcohol, trained typists were tested and their errors increased 40 percent. Only one ounce of alcohol increases the time required to make a decision by nearly 10 percent; hinders muscular reaction by 17 percent; increases errors due to lack of attention by 35 percent. —Paul Harvey

Just one ounce... one ounce affects the thinking process and reflexes.

So much for your theory.

Wine that makes glad the heart of man was non alcoholic.

This does not indicate a destruction of brain cells or any other permanent damage. That alcohol is a depressant isn't disputed. That it affects the body isn't disputed. Your claim goes beyond that though.

As always, your arguments depend on fallacious reasoning.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Using sound reasoning and interpretation is an error?

Nope. But its *not* sound reasoning or interpretation. Its a prior assumptions combined with fallacy of begging the question and circular reasoning...as I have demonstrated numerous times.

What the anti-alcohol crowd never does is build a sound argument from sound hermeneutics. Begging the question and circular reasoning are always involved. Please feel free to make an actual argument and i will demonstrate it.

EDit: And I don't say this dismissively. I say this after long observation. But seriously, if you think you can present a sound argument for the Scriptural prohibition of alcohol, please do so. I would be glad to go over it with you point by point. I teach elementary logic so I have a least a little idea of how to identify a sound argument.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Sure there is. Jesus went to a wedding feast where there would be joy and merriment because of the bridegroom getting married.

He provided an over abundance of non alcoholic wine, of which some was given to the governor of the festivities. The governor was elated that this, the best wine was saved until last.

This event occurred 3 days after Jesus was baptized by John.

Begging the question which can only be supported by circular reasoning.
- How do you know it was non-alcoholic wine? Because Christ wouldn't make alcoholic wine.
- How do you know Christ wouldn't make alcoholic wine? Because Scripture says alcoholic wine is bad.
- What about the times where Scripture speaks positively of wine? Those speaking of non-alcoholic wine.
- How do you know they are speaking of non-alcoholic wine? Because Scripture says alcohol is bad.
- But what of the times it speaks of alcohol in a positive manner? Refer to earlier answer...


And round and round the circular reasoning goes...

 

[Baptist Believer]

After taking only small quantities of alcohol, trained typists were tested and their errors increased 40 percent. Only one ounce of alcohol increases the time required to make a decision by nearly 10 percent; hinders muscular reaction by 17 percent; increases errors due to lack of attention by 35 percent. —Paul Harvey

Just want to point out that Paul Harvey was not always the greatest source of information. From time to time he reported urban legends as factual events.

Just one ounce... one ounce affects the thinking process and reflexes.

I'll accept that. One ounce of pure alcohol (think 190+ proof like Everclear) is a substantial amount!

Wine and beer (and even shots of hard liquor) have a much lower concentration of alcohol. Furthermore, if you consume alcoholic beverages with a meal or over time, the actual amount affecting your body at any one time is greatly reduced.

But the real issue is not whether or not it has an effect (a large God-honoring meal at the end of a long day slows me down more than any quantity of alcoholic beverage I have even consumed), but whether there is drunkeness (loss of control).

So much for your theory.

Hardly. If most people consume a substantial amount of alcohol (1 oz. of pure alcohol) on an empty stomach, they are going to have some effects.

Wine that makes glad the heart of man was non alcoholic.

Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.



Seems to me that those who hold your view live and die by a couple of verses from Proverbs, wrested out of their context and genre as wisdom literature. The Proverbs are pithy bits of wisdom, meant to be meditated upon, that are general guides to life. They do not carry the same weight as any of the Ten Commandments or the teachings of Jesus.

In fact, if we read the Proverbs the same way we read other biblical literature, we're going to get ourselves into trouble very quickly since the Proverbs occasionally contradict each other if interpreted as eternal truths. For instance:

Proverbs 26:4–5 (NIV)

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.


The reason this is not really a contradiction is that the reader of these Proverbs is supposed to exercise discernment and decide which way to deal with the "fools" he encounters through life. However if we try to take these Proverbs as woodenly literal commands, we have a big problem.

 

[dwmoeller1]

BTW, here are some actual studies (vs. Paul Harvey's unsourced and unqualified claims) which indicate that brain cells are not killed by moderate use of alcohol, but, in fact, moderate use of alcohol can have a positive affect on brain operation:

Antilla, Tiia, et al. Alcohol drinking in middle age and subsequent risk of mild cognitive impairment and dementia in old age: a prospective population based study. British Medical Journal, 2004, 329, 538-539.

Bates, M.E., and Tracy, J.I. Cognitive functioning in young "social drinkers": Is there impairment to detect? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1990, 99, 242-249.

Elias, P.K., et al. Alcohol consumption and cognitive performance in the Framingham Heart Study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1999, 150(6), 580-589.

Ford, Gene. The Science of Health Drinking. San Francisco, CA: Wine Appreciation Guild, 2004.

Galanis, D. J., et al. A longitudinal study of drinking and cognitive performance in elderly Japanese American men: The Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. American Journal of Public Health, 2000, 90, 1254-1259.

Harrison, P.G. Moderate Drinking Helps Preserve Women's Brains. Reuters Health, June 15, 2001

McDougall, Graham. Older Women's Cognitive and Affective Response to Moderate Drinking. Presented at the meetings of the National Congress on the State of Science in Nursing Research. Washington, D.C., October 7-8,2004; University of Texas at Austin. Moderate drinking in older adult women has positive influence on memory. News release, October 3,2004.

Rodgers, B., et al. Non-linear relationships between cognitive function and alcohol consumption in young, middle-aged and older adults: The PATH Through Life Project. Addiction, 2005, 100(9), 1280-1290

Anstey, K. J., et al. Lower cognitive test scores observed in alcohol are associated with demographic, personality, and biological factors: The PATH Through Life Project. Addiction, 2005, 100(9), 1291-1301.


So much for Steadfast's unfounded and unsupported claims. The claim that moderate use of alcohol kills brain cells, etc. seems to be a myth started by the temperance movement.

 

[annsni]

Your whole premise falls through considering the fact that alcohol is not fruit. Alcohol is a toxic chemical that destroys brain cells, vital organ, homes and lives.

Alcohol is an instrument that man uses to defile the body. And he that defiles the body God will destroy.

Say it with me:

the ABUSE of alcohol .......

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Say it with me:

the ABUSE of alcohol .......

Say it with me:
LOOK NOT upon the wine WHEN IT IS FERMENTED.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ann....doesnt air eventually kill you? My gosh....your still at it with these people? LOL.... Will it never end. ROFL!!

 

[annsni]

Ann....doesnt air eventually kill you? My gosh....your still at it with these people? LOL.... Will it never end. ROFL!!

Air definitely will get you in the end.