Drinking Question......

[Luke2427]

While it is spoken of good terms at times it is more often acquainted with harm, folly, judgment, and sin.
It seems prudence should be used when in determining if drinking is potentially a good idea.. even if it is allowed.

I'm not against drinking.. but there is more to the argument for abstinence of wine, beer, or strong drink that just being allowed or not.


This is a false statement as the position against alcohol as a drink goes all the way back to the apostles. There we have Paul's own disciple or at the very least fellow laborer under Paul, Timothy, Not Drinking it.. and so Paul tries to encourage him to do so.. but NOT for a drink but medicinal. We also have Paul writing about to drink or not elsewhere because it was a position that was just as prevalent then as it is today.


So?


So? Both hold to some views I think are incorrect but that does not make drinking beer, wine, ect.. acceptable.


Again so what?


again So what.. Timothy in scripture abstained as did others apparently.
And they seemed to think it was the most biblical position as well.


Yes. the Catholic Church did many godless things for hundreds of years. (yes.. that was being funny)
However, just because the church for hundreds of years held to salvation through works.. should we continue there in?


No it doesn't. I say one 'can' there is a difference.. and there are reasons.

Your lack of knowledge on this is somewhat disturbing.. Timothy in scripture is a case in point.. one who learned or continued his learning under Paul the apostle and still abstained.


I can understand it coming from a biblical position.


Again, you are trumped by scripture on the biblical issue.
Ummm...Which part of church history.. or are you simply being selective here.
I have already shown it was a view held during Pauls times via Timothy.. that is part of church history..


It seems you have not kept up on your scripture readings.
While I do not deny we 'can' drink alcoholic drinks.. there are many things that scripture tells us can and do prohibit us from doing so.
1. reason for drinking
2. Times you are drinking
3. Oaths or service which are prohibited from us doing so
4. positions which should prohibit from us doing so
5. our christian brothers and sisters in our sphere of influence and how they see it
6. our witness before the world.

Below is a post I posted earlier in this thread and give some interesting insights into times and aspects where it is forbidden. with a bit of added info to it in places for clarification.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

It [drinking] wasn't permitted at times nor to all people.
Priests were forbidden to even have any [amount] before or during their ministering/service and if they did God would kill them. Granted that after their ministering was up they could partake, just not ANY before they showed up for ministry or during. The Nazarite was forbidden to even touch the very grapes, ripe or dried at all, till his vow to God was fulfilled.

We also have Proverbs stating it is not for Kings or princes to to drink wine or strong drink.
and to be given to those who are dieing or who are in bitter distress of the soul.

So it seems that if
1. one is under a vow,
2. in the service/ministry toward God and/or His people, or
3. watching over God's people, they should cease from such drink so as to not even potentially pervert the things of God.

That is not a declaration but an interesting observation of and from those who were not to drink or not to drink at certain times.

It is interesting that Timothy (a disciple of Paul) chose not to drink at all, and to the extent that Paul tried to encourage him to take a 'little bit' for his stomach problems. So the issue regarding christian should or should not drink is as old as the early church. Even Paul had to deal with other Christians, and not just Timothy, about drinking or not.

Paul's answer to the issue was that if drinking or eating was a stumbling block or considered a sin to another brother he was in contact with, then he would cease to continue doing that thing till the world ends, for their benefit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That last part is the key. It is funny how those who drink will scream 'we biblically can' and yet ignore scripture where it tells us why we biblically should not. - Not that we 'can not' but 'should not'.

Our freedom in Christ is not that we can drink.. but that we can abstain out of love for the brethren and the desire to help THEM grow no matter what the cost.

This whole post, indeed your entire position, seems to rest fully upon a grand assumption- that Timothy was a teetotler.

That certain individuals or groups have abstained is no proof that the Bible encourages abstinence.

If the Bible does NOT encourage it- then who are we to do so?... particularly when Scripture encourages the moderate use of it and great men throughout church history have done so.

 

[Luke2427]

I'll agree there is no good in seeing movies, and I will never fight for anyone's "right" to go see one.

But, it sounds to me like you agree there is no good drinking alcohol. So my question is, why do you do it if it's not for the drug effects?

You must have misunderstood me. I do not think that going to the movies is a sin or even wrong in any way.

I am making a point that you can plug well nigh anything pleasurable into your paradigm and show the faultiness of it.

 

[Luke2427]

You seem to ignore the historical record that others did not.

So what if others did not. The point of this aspect of the conversation is that the moderate use of alcohol is perfectly permissible, if not to be outright encouraged.

This is the Bible position. This is the position of many greats throughout church history.

That some chose not to drink does nothing to that position whatsoever.

I assume the moderate consumption of onions is perfectly permissible in Scripture and that plenty of church leaders in history have eaten their fair share.

But I do not like onions- so that proves that onions ought to be avoided, right? Of course not. But that seems to be the essence of your argument against the moderate use of alcohol.

 

[Luke2427]

It is wonderful that so many Christians here are able to have two, three, or more drinks and not be impaired. It’s great that so many Christians can stop or start drinking and not feel the need to drink regularly. But for large numbers of people this is not the case. They cannot drink in moderation even if they want to. Many become alcoholics after their very first drink, and large numbers of high schoolers and college students binge drink every weekend. Overintoxication alone kills about 80,000 people annually. And yet here we have 14 pages of justification (and 31 on the other thread) from Christians saying yeah go ahead and drink, just be moderate about it. As if.

I cannot imagine this level of support here justifying any other such risky behaviors, and yet most are going out of the way to defend something that clearly is devastating to millions of individuals and families. Alcohol use is by far the leading risk factor for disease in the Americas, far surpassing even tobacco. How self-indulgent (or just plain stubborn) can one be?

Yes you can find Scripture allowing it's use. You can also find Scripture allowing the hamstringing of horses, or stoning sinners. But it is doubtful that anyone here would defend those activities, ad infinitum.

I don't mean t be disrespectful here but this is not an argument. It is emotional hyperbole. And it is not accurate.

It ignores the fact that cholesterol kills more people than alcohol- but I bet you are not so vehemently opposed to KFC or Sonny's Barbeque.

It assumes that the moderate use of alcohol is comparable to passages concerning stoning law breakers, which it is not.

And it does not make a case other than to claim that alcohol destroys lives which is also flat out wrong.

The ABUSE of alcohol destroys families. Sin is what we hold in out hearts, not what we hold in our hands.

It assumes that alcohol is ridiculously addictive- so much so that one drink can hurl a person into a life of addiction. This is not true. We're not talking about meth. I don't think there is any scientific information that will support this notion concerning alcohol.

 

[Luke2427]

But is drinking a part of salvation? Is it something that God required of Israel or the disciples? Does Jesus say 'Go forth and serve good wine to all nations and make wine-drinkers of them all"? None of the above. At most it is a pleasant drink that people are allowed to have. Defending alcohol use is not like defending the faith, though it's hard to tell sometimes!

Done.

Defending reason, however, is important. The abstinence position is not reasonable. And when thousands of our ranks go around yelling these nonsensical arguments it affects our ability as a movement to minister to the masses.

 

[jaigner]

But is drinking a part of salvation? Is it something that God required of Israel or the disciples? Does Jesus say 'Go forth and serve good wine to all nations and make wine-drinkers of them all"? None of the above. At most it is a pleasant drink that people are allowed to have. Defending alcohol use is not like defending the faith, though it's hard to tell sometimes!

The first part of your post is not at all persuasive. You're posting on BB. That's not required as part of your faith. In enjoy baseball, steak dinners and teaching music. I'm pretty sure that's not required.

People use so many strange, pseudo-logical, anecdotal arguments to decry alcohol use that it borders on lunacy. The point here is that alcohol use is a matter of conscience and Christian freedom. If you feel that drinking is not the right choice for you, I completely support that. But if you try and hold other people to your personal conviction, then we have a problem.

And that Maker's Mark sour will taste mighty good this evening.

 

[Aaron]

You must have misunderstood me. I do not think that going to the movies is a sin or even wrong in any way.

I am making a point that you can plug well nigh anything pleasurable into your paradigm and show the faultiness of it.

No, I got your point. Just substitute the word "pleasureable" with the word "vain," and you will have gotten mine. You're avoiding my question though. Why drink alcohol if not for the drug effects? (After all, that's where the pleasure is.)

 

[annsni]

No, I got your point. Just substitute the word "pleasureable" with the word "vain," and you will have gotten mine. You're avoiding my question though. Why drink alcohol if not for the drug effects? (After all, that's where the pleasure is.)

You don't understand do you? The pleasure for me is in the taste. This morning I made chili and was supposed to use beer in the recipe. I have beer in the garage for over a year now and honestly wanted to make sure it still tasted OK since it's been through the cold freezing winter of last year and the 100+ degree temps this year so I dunked my finger in to get a taste. MAN, did it taste good. I certainly didn't get buzzed on a finger dunk of beer but I loved the taste of it. You keep saying it's for the drug effects but that is wrong for MANY people.

 

[Aaron]

You don't understand do you? The pleasure for me is in the taste. This morning I made chili and was supposed to use beer in the recipe. I have beer in the garage for over a year now and honestly wanted to make sure it still tasted OK since it's been through the cold freezing winter of last year and the 100+ degree temps this year so I dunked my finger in to get a taste. MAN, did it taste good. I certainly didn't get buzzed on a finger dunk of beer but I loved the taste of it. You keep saying it's for the drug effects but that is wrong for MANY people.

Try to keep your answers relevant to the topic. We're not talking about cooking with beer. We're talking about drinking alcohol, which you concede is a drug.

And I don't buy the taste thing. I've been around the block a time or two. Alcohol is an acquired taste. If you'd never had wine, your first sip would would gag you.

 

[Luke2427]

No, I got your point. Just substitute the word "pleasureable" with the word "vain," and you will have gotten mine. You're avoiding my question though. Why drink alcohol if not for the drug effects? (After all, that's where the pleasure is.)

Brother Aaron, I don't understand. Are you saying that we should never do anything pleasurable because it is vain?

Are you saying that we should never do anything vain?

Because Solomon said hard work and devotion to learning is vanity. It is still to be encouraged.

Now to answer your question.

I DO think that one of the reasons one drinks alcohol is for the drug effects.

I think they pursue relaxation which alcohol provides.

I don't think that this is condemned in Scripture.

I am aware that "sorcery" is condemned- the word for sorcery being "pharmacia" from which we get our word for drugs.

The moderate use of drugs is not condemned. Hold on! I am not saying that the moderate use of crack is permissible. This is because there IS no moderate use of crack. It is too potent to be used in moderation.

Tylenol is a drug. Unisom is a drug that many use to accomplish the exact same , at least very similar, effects moderate amounts of alcohol produce.

People take drugs to calm their nerves, relax their muscles, control depression, stimulate their consciousness, ease minor and major pain, etc... These are not in view in the "pharmacia" passages. For the same reasons, neither is the moderate use of alcohol.

 

[NiteShift]

The ABUSE of alcohol destroys families. Sin is what we hold in out hearts, not what we hold in our hands. It assumes that alcohol is ridiculously addictive- so much so that one drink can hurl a person into a life of addiction. This is not true. We're not talking about meth. I don't think there is any scientific information that will support this notion concerning alcohol.

For a significant minority of people, alcohol does become addictive almost immediately. If you have ever been around alcoholics you will often hear them speak their very first drink and how pleasurable it was, and they were on their way.

don't mean t be disrespectful here but this is not an argument. It is emotional hyperbole. And it is not accurate. It ignores the fact that cholesterol kills more people than alcohol- but I bet you are not so vehemently opposed to KFC or Sonny's Barbeque.

You are mistaken. Alcohol is a much greater risk factor for disease than high cholesterol.

 

[NiteShift]

People use so many strange, pseudo-logical, anecdotal arguments to decry alcohol use that it borders on lunacy. The point here is that alcohol use is a matter of conscience and Christian freedom. If you feel that drinking is not the right choice for you, I completely support that. But if you try and hold other people to your personal conviction, then we have a problem.

And that Maker's Mark sour will taste mighty good this evening.

You somehow think this is more logical, less anecdotal? You happen to like drinking and so you will go to any lengths to defend it. I cannot imagine you going on that way in support of tobacco. Very likely you would quote all the studies showing the damage it does, it's costs to society.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Just want to interject something here.

Much earlier most of you probably noticed that a post by Annni was censored out of existance by a moderator. Our moderators have a job to do and I respect that.

However, I emailed Ann about it because I have never read anything objectionable in her posts and I just wondered what happened.

She shared with me what she posted, and I am certain that NOBODY on here would have been offended by what she said.

(except maybe our friend Aaron..who probably considers using the phrase "Geewillikers" to be the unpardonable sin.) :laugh:

Ann simply, and very obviously, used an illustration to make point, and everyone would have understood it to be just that.

(except maybe Aaron) :tonofbricks:

 

[Luke2427]

For a significant minority of people, alcohol does become addictive almost immediately. If you have ever been around alcoholics you will often hear them speak their very first drink and how pleasurable it was, and they were on their way.



You are mistaken. Alcohol is a much greater risk factor for disease than high cholesterol.

I appreciate your intellectual honesty in admitting that it is a significant minority who this applies to. However, it renders the argument impotent.

A significant minority of people have foot fetishes and all kinds of weird addictions. Should we, therefore, promote the total abstinence of flip flops and various footwear which is revealing?

Well of course not.

Neither should we promote the total abstinence of alcohol just because a "significant minority" MAY or CLAIM to have become drunks their first drink.

As for the website you gave me- I do not have the time to read that entire ridiculously long paper. If you have a quote from it, then I will consider it.

In the mean time this article says cholesterol is the cause of the # 1 killer of Americans.
http://www.vegsource.com/michael-greger-md/the-cause-of-our-number-one-killer.html

The fact is that you are right about some things. Alcohol is very dangerous. The Bible does fully condemn drunkenness as a lifestyle. Caution is to be encouraged.
These are biblical positions.

That's where we should stop- where God does.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

You are mistaken. Alcohol is a much greater risk factor for disease than high cholesterol.

Pan Health did some great research after the turn of the Century, NiteShift.

Their charts are, while revealing, very disturbing. 69,000 young people killed in 2002 due to alcohol.

And so many are deceived into believing it is ok to take that first drink.

 

[Luke2427]

Pan Health did some great research after the turn of the Century, NiteShift.

Their charts are, while revealing, very disturbing. 69,000 young people killed in 2002 due to alcohol.

And so many are deceived into believing it is ok to take that first drink.

Steadfast Fred, the problem is that you guys seem to think this position of yours is from God. It is not.

And your argument about the dangers of alcohol is moot. EVERYONE on this thread agrees that alcohol has the potential to be dangerous. That is not enough to condemn it.

And you ought to consider that hundreds of millions of people drink regularly in moderation around this world and are upstanding citizens with no destructive addiction.

If a half billion people drink around this globe and never kill any one in drunk driving accidents or beat their wives, if they hold jobs, etc... then what real weight does your claim that thousands die due to alcohol related incidents carry? What percentage is that- thousands compared to hundreds of millions?

Millions and millions and millions of people drink. That some of them abuse it and kill others is to be expected. Millions of people own guns. Some of them abuse them and kill others. Should we ban guns?? Of course not. What a small percentage of people do by way of abuse does not necessitate abstinence for the whole world.

Hundreds of thousands die every year in surgery. Should we abstain from surgery???
195,000 died in preventable medical errors in 2002 in the US. That's not counting the thousands more who died when no error was committed. Are you a teetotler when it comes to surgical procedures? Be consistent.

And here is the big thing. Moderate use of alcohol never killed ANYONE in a car accident. Abuse of alcohol has done that. The two are not to be lumped into the same category any more than Timothy McVeigh and Billy Graham are to be lumped together. Abuse is the only thing you can reasonably argue against. We all argue against abuse of alcohol.


Yours is not an argument, Steadfast Fred. It is unfounded emotional banter.

That thousands die and therefore we all should abstain from what kills them does not hold water. It simply does not. If this rule you purport is true of alcohol then it must be applied to surgery, Tylenol, coffee, cholesterol, and everything else that enhances the quality of life for millions but is responsible for the deaths of thousands. Be consistent. Apply your rule consistently.

 

[jaigner]

You somehow think this is more logical, less anecdotal? You happen to like drinking and so you will go to any lengths to defend it. I cannot imagine you going on that way in support of tobacco. Very likely you would quote all the studies showing the damage it does, it's costs to society.

So it's the drink, not the drinker. We should ban guns, then, since they cost us a lot.

I actually was against drinking for many years because I was raised that way by moralistic, legalistic parents. During the time I did my theological work in grad school, through much study and prayer, I came to the point where I realized my position was indefensable. It was tben, and only then, that I began to drink occasionally.

So it was not my love of drinking that led me to my position. Such an argument is the first one people turn to when people don't agree with them on something. It's no more true for me than it is for you.

A glass of wine might do you some good.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yall come from Bible Belt too

 

[Aaron]

Brother Aaron, I don't understand. Are you saying that we should never do anything pleasurable because it is vain?

Are you saying that we should never do anything vain?

Because Solomon said hard work and devotion to learning is vanity. It is still to be encouraged.

Now to answer your question.

I DO think that one of the reasons one drinks alcohol is for the drug effects.

I think they pursue relaxation which alcohol provides.

I don't think that this is condemned in Scripture.

I am aware that "sorcery" is condemned- the word for sorcery being "pharmacia" from which we get our word for drugs.

The moderate use of drugs is not condemned. Hold on! I am not saying that the moderate use of crack is permissible. This is because there IS no moderate use of crack. It is too potent to be used in moderation.

Tylenol is a drug. Unisom is a drug that many use to accomplish the exact same , at least very similar, effects moderate amounts of alcohol produce.

People take drugs to calm their nerves, relax their muscles, control depression, stimulate their consciousness, ease minor and major pain, etc... These are not in view in the "pharmacia" passages. For the same reasons, neither is the moderate use of alcohol.

What in the kingdom of fairies did this guy just say?

 

[Amy.G]

What in the kingdom of fairies did this guy just say?

I guess he's saying that taking Tylenol for a headache is the same as drinking a beer to get a buzz. :laugh: