Drinking Alcohol Moderately

[dwmoeller1]

But what about the argument that Streadfast Fred proposes that, since the Israelites didn't drink alcohol (the shekhar of Deut 29:6) while in the wilderness, then Lev 10:9 cannot be referring to alcohol?

Two problems with this argument:
1. If this is true, then the shekhar of Num 6:3 could not refer to alcohol either. How can a person forswear what is not being used by anyone to begin with? It is not much of a vow to forswear that which is already forbidden or not being used to begin with. So maybe the prohibition against strong drink was for when they got out of the desert? Which leads me to the second point...

2. The second problem is that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation of this "contradiction". Notice that the Hebrews are also commanded to bring first fruits of their crops and orchards. Yet we know that they wandered in the desert for 40 years and ate manna and quail provided by God. Thus, during their wandering they had no crops or orchards to give first fruits from. Would we thus conclude that this command to bring the first fruits could not refer to crops and orchards but must instead refer to manna and quail? Of course not, even Steadfast Fred would agree that such a conclusion is absurd.

So why then are they given commands that don't apply to their time of wandering? Well, obviously, its because the commands are meant to be applied after their wanderings are over - when they have settled down and have crops, orchards...and alcohol. So, just as insisting that crops and orchards cannot mean crops and orchards due to their conditions while wandering would be absurd logic, so too would insisting that Deut 10:9 cannot refer to alcohol.


And thats not even touching on the fact that every translation and every Hebrew scholar would agree that Deut 10:9 refers to alcohol.

 

[PrivateWoman]

If meeting a girl can cause one to fall into immoderation and sin, then, by your own reasoning, it is unwise for unmarried guys and gals to ever interact socially. It is therefore best for unmarried guys and gals to never interact.

Can you not see that such reasoning when applied to other things leads to absurd conclusions? The same is true when it is applied to alcohol use. Such reasoning relies on dividing the issue into extremes and drawing conclusions from that. Such reasoning is fallacious.

This has gotten off topic in many ways. You are taking it too extreme about what I mean.

There is nothing wrong with people interacting with the opposite sex. My point is that this guy should have found a good Christian lady who had the same standards and convictions as him. He should have broken up with this girl after he found out that her standards were lower than his rather than compromising.

I've tried hard to help you all understand why it is not wise to drink alcohol moderately. If I drank, I would feel so guilty that I would have to go to the front of the church to apologize to everyone about what I did and admit that I hurt my testimony.

The pastor's son at my grandparents started drinking moderately and then increased how much he drank. He became an alcoholic. About a year ago, he preached to the youth about how they should never touch alcohol. Alcoholics began drinking moderately.

 

[jaigner]

I've tried hard to help you all understand why it is not wise to drink alcohol moderately. If I drank, I would feel so guilty that I would have to go to the front of the church to apologize to everyone about what I did and admit that I hurt my testimony.

Non-believer's don't care. Pride and self-righteousness does way more damage than a drink here and there. Historically, Christians have believed that this was an issue of conscience. Many of the reformers drank. Many patristic writers drank. This just isn't a big deal.

 

[dwmoeller1]

This has gotten off topic in many ways. You are taking it too extreme about what I mean.

There is nothing wrong with people interacting with the opposite sex. My point is that this guy should have found a good Christian lady who had the same standards and convictions as him. He should have broken up with this girl after he found out that her standards were lower than his rather than compromising.

We are still on topic very much. Let me try to explain further....
I agree that there is nothing wrong with interacting with the opposite sex. I agree that he should have found a good Christian lady. No disagreement on that, and I understood that to be your point.

What I did was to apply your reasoning about alcohol to that particular situation in order to demonstrate the fallacious nature of such reasoning. You reason
a. that since one drink may lead to many, (true)
b. and many may destroy a person's life, (true)
c. that therefore it would be wrong/unwise to drink the first drink. (untrue - it is based on a fallacy)

This reasoning is known as the slippery slope fallacy. This fallacy argues "that a relatively small first step (moderate alcohol use) inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact (life destroyed)" and therefore one should never allow the first step. The fallacy of such reasoning can be demonstrated in many ways. I was showing the fallacious nature of such reasoning by applying it guy-girl relationships.

So, the slippery slope applied to your particular story would work like this...
The young men end up in entangled in sin (significant impact), because they first interact with a girl (first small step), therefore it is unwise/wrong to let young men interact at all with girls. We would both agree that such reasoning is absurd when applied to guy-girl relationships. You point out that there was nothing wrong about first interacting with the girl (the first step), but that the guy should have broken up with the girl when he found out her character (intermediate step), in order to prevent his entanglement in sin (final ruin).

Likewise the non-fallacious approach to destructiveness of immoderate use of alcohol is *not* to forbid moderate use (first step), but to stop before reaching immoderate use (intermediate step). Moderate use of alcohol does not inevitably lead to death by alcohol any more than appropriate interaction with the opposite sex leads to fornication. I know you can't accept this fact in your heart and conscience, nor am I trying to force you to. What you do need to do in order to remain consistent with Scripture, to avoid legalism, and to avoid binding other's consciences is to accept this fact with your mind.

I've tried hard to help you all understand why it is not wise to drink alcohol moderately. If I drank, I would feel so guilty that I would have to go to the front of the church to apologize to everyone about what I did and admit that I hurt my testimony.

The pastor's son at my grandparents started drinking moderately and then increased how much he drank. He became an alcoholic. About a year ago, he preached to the youth about how they should never touch alcohol. Alcoholics began drinking moderately.

Likewise the son started with appropriate interaction with the girl and then increased his connection to her till she entangled him in sin. Thus he never should have interacted with a girl.

The logic is the same as you are applying to alcohol but the conclusion is obviously absurd. Same for trying to apply it to moderate alcohol use.

 

[annsni]

This has gotten off topic in many ways. You are taking it too extreme about what I mean.

There is nothing wrong with people interacting with the opposite sex. My point is that this guy should have found a good Christian lady who had the same standards and convictions as him. He should have broken up with this girl after he found out that her standards were lower than his rather than compromising.

Who says her standards were lower than his? Who makes the determination of what is "high standards" and what is "low standards"? Her standards were DIFFERENT than his and if he felt strongly about his and compromised, then that was wrong. However if he decided his standards were wrong and hers were right, who says he was compromising?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Who says her standards were lower than his? Who makes the determination of what is "high standards" and what is "low standards"? Her standards were DIFFERENT than his and if he felt strongly about his and compromised, then that was wrong. However if he decided his standards were wrong and hers were right, who says he was compromising?

FWIW, if what she says is accurate - that lewdness and drunkenness were the norm for the couple - then I think it safe to say that the standards were lower rather than merely different.

 

[dwmoeller1]

What Scripture says about drinking alcohol:
1 Tim 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worth of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

What it doesn't say:
1 Tim 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worth of respect, sincere, not drinking wine at all, and not pursuing dishonest gain

The logical import of what Scripture says is that its permissible to drink wine, even for deacons. What is specifically prohibited is immoderate consumption. Logically it makes no sense to forbid immoderate consumption if alcohol is to be forbidden altogether.

<Waiting in anticipation for Steadfast to say that this verse isn't talking about alcohol at all >

 

[annsni]

What Scripture says about drinking alcohol:
1 Tim 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worth of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

What it doesn't say:
1 Tim 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worth of respect, sincere, not drinking wine at all, and not pursuing dishonest gain

The logical import of what Scripture says is that its permissible to drink wine, even for deacons. What is specifically prohibited is immoderate consumption. Logically it makes no sense to forbid immoderate consumption if alcohol is to be forbidden altogether.

<Waiting in anticipation for Steadfast to say that this verse isn't talking about alcohol at all >

Can I pull up a chair and wait with you? I asked about that a while back and still have not had an answer.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Can I pull up a chair and wait with you? I asked about that a while back and still have not had an answer.

I'm sure if I searched the archives, I would find that the answer to Paul's instruction to Timothy has been answered but you have rejected the answer.

After all, the alcohol debate has been around for years.

 

[annsni]

I'm sure if I searched the archives, I would find that the answer to Paul's instruction to Timothy has been answered but you have rejected the answer.

After all, the alcohol debate has been around for years.

How about YOU answer it. But if you wish to look at the archives to see where it's been answered and I rejected it. I'd love to see it myself.

 

[zbrown0228]

What about "strong drink"?? That is always alcoholic. God even tells His people to go ahead and buy strong drink and enjoy it. Why is that?

To decide that "wine" spoken of well is non-alcoholic and "wine" spoken of poorly is alcoholic is very poor scholarship. Extremely poor.

Who is to say that "strong drink" is referring to something alcoholic. Coffee is a strong drink.

 

[annsni]

Who is to say that "strong drink" is referring to something alcoholic. Coffee is a strong drink.

Not in the Greek. I already mentioned that the word shekar means an alcoholic drink. It is the noun form of the verb that means "become drunk". Do you become drunk on coffee? Or how about Jolt?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Who is to say that "strong drink" is referring to something alcoholic. Coffee is a strong drink.

Every single Hebrew lexicon for one. That is, open any Hebrew lexicon and look up the word translated "strong drink" (shekar) and you will find that all of them hold it to be alcohol, intoxicating drink, or some variation of those. In short, no Hebrew scholars disputes that "strong drink" is in reference to alcohol.

Not to mention Merriam-Webster gives one definition for "strong drink" and that is "intoxicating liquor". So even the English phrase "strong drink" is held by authorities on English word meanings to refer specifically to alcohol.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Heh, went back trying to find some mention of the verse from Timothy I cited. I didn't, but I found some interesting reasoning in the thread from a few months back. The argument that people don't drink alcohol for the taste was a hoot. Classic fallacy of amphiboly. You ever tasted unsweetened chocolate? Nasty tasty stuff. So clearly people don't eat chocolate for the taste since no one enjoys it straight. Straight soda water? Nasty stuff. Clearly nobody drinks soda for the taste.

This reasoning depends on the fallacy of amphiboly. In normal conversation "drinking alcohol" refers to alcoholic beverages. To insist on the technical meaning of alcohol - that is straight alcohol, commonly referred to as ethyl alcohol - is fallacious. I would lay dollars to donuts that if you asked him if wine was alcohol in a normal context that he would flip-flop definitions and answer yes.

 

[annsni]

I wonder how long we have to wait.

 

[Jerome]

Numbers 6:3
He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

Does anyone know what exactly "liquor of grapes" is referring to in this verse?

 

[annsni]

Does anyone know what exactly "liquor of grapes" is referring to in this verse?

I would say it would be ANY liquid from grapes - juice or wine.

 

[Jim1999]

Think of the context......."making a special vow of separation to the Lord, a Nazarite............." The drinking of all vinous products produce changes in the brain of man by its natural actions.......so, separate from it too........Nothing to do with he alcoholic values because it includes all vinous juices.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jerome]

So we have an English word, liquor, that nowdays denotes booze, but formerly was used for juice too.

Imagine that.

 

[webdog]

So we have an English word, liquor, that nowdays denotes booze, but formerly was used for juice too.

Imagine that.

Not following you...imagine what?