Have a Beer! It may be sinful NOT TO!

[psalms109:31]

Maybe they should abstain from watching football...

If you truly believe it is causing you and other to stumble and sin sure, if it isn't then you have no reason to abstain from watching football. Please lift them up in prayer his face is swollen almost twice the size.

 

[Gina B]

Skandelon, that was in an Orthodox Jewish temple and before being a Christian.

The only POSSIBLE exceptions for alcohol in the Bible, if one decides that wine is to always be interpreted as alcoholic, appears to be for medicinal use (mental or physical illness or to purify water) or for very special times.

Never does it say, or even imply, to drink highly alcoholic drinks like beer and strong wine, which is pretty much any modern wine sold for drinking.

I don't understand how you do not see alcohol as highly addictive and dangerous, given all the access to information on it. It's so dangerous that whole countries make it illegal to have ANY alcohol in your system when operating a vehicle. The states have laws that make it illegal after so much, generally .08 and that isn't much! I can't believe it's that high, as tests show that even at .02, driving can be impaired.

That's just scary. How does one know what their propensity for addiction is when taking that first drink? Can anyone really say it's not addictive unless abused? If someone drinks a beer a day, you really don't think they would get addicted? Start wanting more than one once they reach a certain level of tolerance for just one a day? Happens all the time.

More dangerous things...nah, I can't buy that. Not with the families destroyed, humans made into roadkill, the high rates of alcoholism in this country. Alcohol is definitely a "more dangerous" thing thing in the lists of very dangerous things.

I'm not going to be offended if you go have a beer. I may choose to not be around someone who is drinking for fun, but it's that person's choice and I can't prove it is wrong according to scripture, but to come on here and promote it as just dandy for daily use is sickening and wrong and that is what bothers me about the opening post. If this person is a pastor and saying this, even entertaining the concept that it might even be a sin to NOT drink daily, how many people will respect his authority (or use it as an excuse) and end up stumbling into the nasty trap of addiction? Is it worth it to prove a point?

Nope.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, that was in an Orthodox Jewish temple and before being a Christian.

Good thing you got saved and gave up that sinful vice, huh?

The only POSSIBLE exceptions for alcohol in the Bible, if one decides that wine is to always be interpreted as alcoholic, appears to be for medicinal use (mental or physical illness or to purify water) or for very special times.

How do you come to that conclusion? Are you making an argument from silence because as far as I know there is no prohibition for alcohol in the scriptures. If there was I'd suspect someone like yourself would have it posted on your signature by now. And the idea of wine not being alcoholic is absurd and kind of funny.

Never does it say, or even imply, to drink highly alcoholic drinks like beer and strong wine, which is pretty much any modern wine sold for drinking.

1. Do you really think beer (with an average of 5% alcohol) is 'highly alcoholic?'
2. You do know this is an argument from silence, right? You are arguing that because the bible never says to drink your interpretation of 'highly alcoholic' drinks that it must not be permissible. It also never says to drink tea, coffee, or gatorade. Should we prohibit those as well?

I don't understand how you do not see alcohol as highly addictive and dangerous

I can be if abused, which means we should teach people not to abuse it...NOT shame people who drink responsibly thus driving an unnecessary wedge in the fellowship ...not to mention making those on the outside feel 'less holy' or worthy to be apart of us because they think they will be judged by a standard that not even Jesus himself met.

, given all the access to information on it. It's so dangerous that whole countries make it illegal to have ANY alcohol in your system when operating a vehicle.

I also can't text and drive, so what? Please learn the difference between being abusive and being responsible.

That's just scary

Fear drives people to do a lot of unbiblical things.

I can't prove it is wrong according to scripture

Enough said.

, but to come on here and promote it as just dandy for daily use is sickening and wrong and that is what bothers me about the opening post. If this person is a pastor and saying this, even entertaining the concept that it might even be a sin to NOT drink daily, how many people will respect his authority (or use it as an excuse) and end up stumbling into the nasty trap of addiction? Is it worth it to prove a point?

I think it would be over the top to say it is a sin to abstain from drink too. I could be wrong, Luke can speak for himself, but it appears to me he is just saying that if a person refuses to drink because of a false tendency toward legalism knowing that it would help his health, that such a decision could be sinful.

 

[Luke2427]

Skandelon, that was in an Orthodox Jewish temple and before being a Christian.

The only POSSIBLE exceptions for alcohol in the Bible, if one decides that wine is to always be interpreted as alcoholic, appears to be for medicinal use (mental or physical illness or to purify water) or for very special times.

Never does it say, or even imply, to drink highly alcoholic drinks like beer and strong wine, which is pretty much any modern wine sold for drinking.

I don't understand how you do not see alcohol as highly addictive and dangerous, given all the access to information on it. It's so dangerous that whole countries make it illegal to have ANY alcohol in your system when operating a vehicle. The states have laws that make it illegal after so much, generally .08 and that isn't much! I can't believe it's that high, as tests show that even at .02, driving can be impaired.

That's just scary. How does one know what their propensity for addiction is when taking that first drink? Can anyone really say it's not addictive unless abused? If someone drinks a beer a day, you really don't think they would get addicted? Start wanting more than one once they reach a certain level of tolerance for just one a day? Happens all the time.

More dangerous things...nah, I can't buy that. Not with the families destroyed, humans made into roadkill, the high rates of alcoholism in this country. Alcohol is definitely a "more dangerous" thing thing in the lists of very dangerous things.

I'm not going to be offended if you go have a beer. I may choose to not be around someone who is drinking for fun, but it's that person's choice and I can't prove it is wrong according to scripture, but to come on here and promote it as just dandy for daily use is sickening and wrong and that is what bothers me about the opening post. If this person is a pastor and saying this, even entertaining the concept that it might even be a sin to NOT drink daily, how many people will respect his authority (or use it as an excuse) and end up stumbling into the nasty trap of addiction? Is it worth it to prove a point?

Nope.

Gina, the thing you don't seem to get is that your stance is Phariseeism.

Phariseeism is the well spring of the greatest evils of all time.

I know you don't think your stance is bad.

I know your stance makes you feel very mature and holy and upstanding.

But that's exactly how the Pharisees felt about their stances. They did not KNOW they were evil doctrines. But they were.

Why is your doctrine evil?

Because it is not founded in Scripture.

Because it makes sin out of something God said for us to enjoy- which is basically accusing GOD of promoting sin.

Because it is HORRIBLY PRESUMPTUOUS to condemn as sin something that the whole history of the Christian church embraced until the temperance movement. It really is is pure evil to me- I mean it- for you to be so arrogant as to condemn MOST CHRISTIANS throughout history.

Because it lacks humility. It is obvious to all of us that you don't know what you are talking about- but you don't care. You speak with the authority of an expert and you don't know the first thing about the history of wine in the Christian church nor do you know one iota about how to exegete the Scriptures that speak on the subject.

 

[Gina B]

Luke, you advocated daily drinking and said it might be a sin not to drink daily.

You still haven't dealt with having made that statement and taken that stance, let alone shown where the daily drinking of alcohol is promoted in Scripture, let alone said in a way that infers it is a sin not to drink daily.

You preached it, now please back it up.

Skandelon, just a couple more questions. Do you honestly believe that it is not alcohol abuse to drink daily?

Who decides what moderation is? When it comes to something addictive, where is the logic of "but it's not addictive if used daily" come in? If you believe other things are more addictive, why not say those things are okay too, but maybe change the use to say...once a month?

What happens when it comes to the difference between wine and beer? Since wine has more alcohol, does someone drinking red wine have to limit themselves to five ounces a day in order not to exceed the same amount of alcohol in a can of beer? Since it is more alcohol but a lesser amount of drink, is it more addictive or less addictive than beer? (hey, good for the heart too, right?)

Luke and others, sounds like advocating this daily drinking thing gets very complicated and, I must say, legalistic. Condone it and you have to start making up conditions and rules in order not to mess up.

That doesn't sound like freedom to me. Sounds more like a headache, and a pretty useless one in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, just a couple more questions. Do you honestly believe that it is not alcohol abuse to drink daily?

I wasn't really even addressing the 'daily use' issue with my former comments. But, since you ask, I know my grandfather drank a small glass of red wine every night with his meal, doctor's orders, and he was not addicted. It helped him. I'm on the side of freedom, moderation, and responsibility, not prescribing, judging, defining other's drinking schedule, etc.

Who decides what moderation is?

The person doing the moderating. How do you know when to stop eating before it becomes gluttonous? How do you know when to stop buying before it becomes materialism? For me, the answer is found in the relationship, not the rules imposed by people with too much time on their hands.

What happens when it comes to the difference between wine and beer? Since wine has more alcohol, does someone drinking red wine have to limit themselves to five ounces a day in order not to exceed the same amount of alcohol in a can of beer? Since it is more alcohol but a lesser amount of drink, is it more addictive or less addictive than beer? (hey, good for the heart too, right?)

If you read line item 4, subset B, to the code book of the Mishnah and the subsequent commentary of the Talmud as expounded by the 3rd Council of the Nicene creed, you will clearly see that ounces of wine weigh more than that of brewed drinks, so when calculating my weekly intake I always take that into account so as not to stumble into sin, thus causing God to turn away from me in the shame of my blatant misconduct. :tonofbricks:

 

[Luke2427]

If you read line item 4, subset B, to the code book of the Mishnah and the subsequent commentary of the Talmud as expounded by the 3rd Council of the Nicene creed, you will clearly see that ounces of wine weigh more than that of brewed drinks, so when calculating my weekly intake I always take that into account so as not to stumble into sin, thus causing God to turn away from me in the shame of my blatant misconduct. :tonofbricks:

Hilarious. :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, you advocated daily drinking and said it might be a sin not to drink daily.

You still haven't dealt with having made that statement and taken that stance, let alone shown where the daily drinking of alcohol is promoted in Scripture, let alone said in a way that infers it is a sin not to drink daily.

You preached it, now please back it up.

Skandelon, just a couple more questions. Do you honestly believe that it is not alcohol abuse to drink daily?

Who decides what moderation is? When it comes to something addictive, where is the logic of "but it's not addictive if used daily" come in? If you believe other things are more addictive, why not say those things are okay too, but maybe change the use to say...once a month?

What happens when it comes to the difference between wine and beer? Since wine has more alcohol, does someone drinking red wine have to limit themselves to five ounces a day in order not to exceed the same amount of alcohol in a can of beer? Since it is more alcohol but a lesser amount of drink, is it more addictive or less addictive than beer? (hey, good for the heart too, right?)

Luke and others, sounds like advocating this daily drinking thing gets very complicated and, I must say, legalistic. Condone it and you have to start making up conditions and rules in order not to mess up.

That doesn't sound like freedom to me. Sounds more like a headache, and a pretty useless one in the grand scheme of things.

I address this thinking in the "ignorance+arrogance" thread.

 

[WITBOTL]

I think it is pretty unfair to accuse Gina of Phariseeism when you open with a legalistic OP and legalistic premise namely:

It may be a far, far, far, FAR worse sin to NOT drink than TO drink (especially since it is not a sin AT ALL to drink responsibly according to the Word of God).

that sounds like a legalistic evaluation to me. A proper contra-legalism is not to refrain from condemning sin. Saying sin is sin is not legalistic. Saying your sin makes you more evil than me and my lack of sin makes me more righteous... that's legalistic.

Now, with respect to alcohol I would simply ask this question: Does its consumption honour God in every respect? Is it in any way a satisfaction of the lust of the flesh? If so then it is sin. My sin might be Caramel Macchiatos but that doesn't make your rum and cokes alright with God.

 

[Luke2427]

I think it is pretty unfair to accuse Gina of Phariseeism when you open with a legalistic OP and legalistic premise namely:



that sounds like a legalistic evaluation to me. A proper contra-legalism is not to refrain from condemning sin. Saying sin is sin is not legalistic. Saying your sin makes you more evil than me and my lack of sin makes me more righteous... that's legalistic.

Saying something that is NOT a sin IS a sin is legalistic. Condemning that which God commends is legalistic.

And it is especially dangerous legalism when it deters people who might contract lethal heart disease from partaking of that which reduces the risk of heart disease by THIRTY PERCENT. they don't drink beer because some legalist has given them the impression that drinking beer is SIN.

So yes- it is legalism .

Now, with respect to alcohol I would simply ask this question: Does its consumption honour God in every respect? Is it in any way a satisfaction of the lust of the flesh? If so then it is sin.

Fulfilling lustful desires is not sin, sir. You need to think that through.

Fulfilling them in contradiction to the will of God is sin.

Paul said people who burn in their lust should get married so that they can fulfill those lusts lawfully.

 

[WITBOTL]

Well, the law says Thou shalt love the Lord that God with all they heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. We do not really understand the full implication of this command. It is an expression of God's jealousy and it is complete and total. Anything within our heart, soul, strength and mind that is not actively and completely engaged in love towards God is a contravention of his will, it is a contravention of his law and is sin.

God's standard of holiness is supreme and absolute.

Without the righteousness of Christ we are simply without hope.

In my view legalism is essentially defining the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law. Christ said except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. The pharisees were great definers of the law and as far as they were concerned held themselves to a higher standard of righteousness than even the law of God (as far as the letter is concerned) but failed to realize that while on the outside they were beautiful inside they were full of dead men's bones.

but I suppose I have digressed from the topic and I apologize

 

[Allan]

Studies which show the health benefits of occasional use of alcohol shouldn't surprise us as believers, after all Paul, UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WITHOUT A CAVEAT, said, "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."

Clearly, a "LITTLE" wine had benefits then, and it still does. Praise God for it and be cautious not to over indulge, as with food, sugar, caffeine, medications, sleep, vacations, or just about any of God's gifts and comforts of life.

The above is true.. but what MUST be understood here is that the resistance of alcohol is not some thing new to this century but has been an issue since the apostles.

One does not have to drink wine anymore for the common affliction with Timothy suffered from, but which at that time was about the only remedy for it.

Not taking either side, but showing that even then, godly and god-fearing men abstained. What is additionally important to understand from Paul's writings however (though it is not law) is that if Paul believed it was a stumbling block to another, he chose not to only do it away from the person (where they can't see), but to NEVER do it at all. It is interesting that people state we aught to emulate Paul and yet will not follow him regarding this precept. It is interesting huh?. It is also noteworthy that apparently Timothy didn't consider it a sin NOT to drink.. He just chose not to. Therefore in light of this and Paul's previous statements why we see Paul encouraging him to take even a small amount for his health.

I will make this last statement here.. It is also apparent the Spirit of the Living God isn't opposed to His people not drinking. Again, we see it in Timothy and we find it in other of Pauls writings:

Rom 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

I find it exegetically intriguing that it is not good to do the above ONLY if it cause your brother to stumble, but also if it OFFENDS him/her, or weakens their walk with God. NOT from your perspective but THEIRs.

1Co 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
1Co 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,

Interesting.. why place drink in there if it was commonly done and no one was offended by it? or that it wasn't a concern to some?
Anyway.. these are some.

Christian liberty isn't for our benefit, but others. To lay down OUR lives for each other as Christ laid down His life for us (1 John 3:16)

 

[Luke2427]

The above is true.. but what MUST be understood here is that the resistance of alcohol is not some thing new to this century but has been an issue since the apostles.

One does not have to drink wine anymore for the common affliction with Timothy suffered from, but which at that time was about the only remedy for it.

Not taking either side, but showing that even then, godly and god-fearing men abstained. What is additionally important to understand from Paul's writings however (though it is not law) is that if Paul believed it was a stumbling block to another, he chose not to only do it away from the person (where they can't see), but to NEVER do it at all. It is interesting that people state we aught to emulate Paul and yet will not follow him regarding this precept. It is interesting huh?. It is also noteworthy that apparently Timothy didn't consider it a sin NOT to drink.. He just chose not to. Therefore in light of this and Paul's previous statements why we see Paul encouraging him to take even a small amount for his health.

Christian liberty isn't for our benefit, but others. To lay down OUR lives for each other as Christ laid down His life for us (1 John 3:16)

Paul was considerate of ignorant Christians who believed in abstinence in I Corinthians 8 so long as they kept it as a personal conviction.

I think we all believe in that.

There are ignorant Christians today who think it is a sin for a woman to wear pants. So in consideration of those ignorant Christians, when we visit them in their home my wife and daughters do not wear pants.

We are all for that.

But what all of us should condemn is the moment when stupidity goes public. It's OK for you to believe all kinds of stupid things like King James Only, no pants on women, and teetotalism. But it is not ok for you to take those stupid beliefs public. Do you see?

That's why on the one hand Paul was paitient with ignorant people so long as they kept their ignorance to themselves in I Corinthians 8. But he obliterated the ignorance of people who PREACH such stupidity in I Timothy 4 (see the other thread along these lines.)

What is sin is not one's personal beliefs in all kinds of stupidity. What is sin is when those personal beliefs keep you from partaking in things that could save your life. And what's worse than that is when you take that stupidity public.

It is similar to the idiotic beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses about blood transfusion. If they want to believe that nonsense- fine. But when they kill their children by it and convert others to it- they ought to be resisted.

 

[Allan]

Paul was considerate of ignorant Christians who believed in abstinence in I Corinthians 8 so long as they kept it as a personal conviction.

I think we all believe in that.

There are ignorant Christians today who think it is a sin for a woman to wear pants. So in consideration of those ignorant Christians, when we visit them in their home my wife and daughters do not wear pants.

We are all for that.

But what all of us should condemn is the moment when stupidity goes public. It's OK for you to believe all kinds of stupid things like King James Only, no pants on women, and teetotalism. But it is not ok for you to take those stupid beliefs public. Do you see?

That's why on the one hand Paul was paitient with ignorant people so long as they kept their ignorance to themselves in I Corinthians 8. But he obliterated the ignorance of people who PREACH such stupidity in I Timothy 4 (see the other thread along these lines.)

What is sin is not one's personal beliefs in all kinds of stupidity. What is sin is when those personal beliefs keep you from partaking in things that could save your life. And what's worse than that is when you take that stupidity public.

It is similar to the idiotic beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses about blood transfusion. If they want to believe that nonsense- fine. But when they kill their children by it and convert others to it- they ought to be resisted.

LOL.. I thought Timothy was a man who was mature in the faith. I thought he was someone Paul trusted to teach the truths of the gospel and the word of God. So since he disagrees with you, he MUST be ignorant. You NEVER find in scripture why Timothy doesn't drink.. so your assumption of his ignorance falls flat. Another point that is funny I don't find Paul stating nor alluding in any sense what you propose.. The only way a person can conceive such is to place it into the text. Now I'm speaking in a general sense here as some can add stuff to why drinking is sinful and THEN make it unbiblical, but that is not what I'm arguing. You set the premise that NOT drinking was sinful.. and you are wrong. I'm saying drinking is a sin, but I'm say NOT drinking is NOT a sin

Additionally, I thought you were talking about Not Drinking being a sin.
I find in scripture that God does not call NOT drinking ignorance at all.
That is YOUR misconception. It is through the Holy SpPirit of God that He states whether eat OR drink, we are to do it for the Glory of God.. and he further adds in various places for spiritual well being of the brethren.

The rest of your post is merely a smoke screen. That is fine. But the fact that you can't change is that not drinking is not sinful, nor is it - according to God - ignorant.

Enjoy

 

[Luke2427]

LOL.. I thought Timothy was a man who was mature in the faith. I thought he was someone Paul trusted to teach the truths of the gospel and the word of God. So since he disagrees with you, he MUST be ignorant. You NEVER find in scripture why Timothy doesn't drink.. so your assumption of his ignorance falls flat.

I have said no less than a half dozen times on this thread that it I do not begrudge anyone their right to personally abstain, Allan.


I am condemning the stupidity and danger of preaching teetotalism.


The danger of it, the sinfulness of it, is when the practice of it and preaching of it costs lives. And that is not the only danger but it is the one I am emphasizing here.

If heart disease is the number one killer of men- and it is- and drinking a pint of beer a day reduces the risk of heart disease by THIRTY PERCENT, then your resistance without bible of it is sinful.

It is no different than the JW's ridiculous conviction about blood transfusions.

 

[Allan]

I have said no less than a half dozen times on this thread that it I do not begrudge anyone their right to personally abstain, Allan.


I am condemning the stupidity and danger of preaching teetotalism.

You JUST did!

The danger of it, the sinfulness of it, is when the practice of it and preaching of it costs lives.

Funny, I thought my length of days was determined by God alone, not my alcoholic consumption. Oh, and by the way, there is more scientific data out there that grapes and other foods give you more of what you need than wine and beer. That is a fact too. So while wine and beer 'can' help, they are not the best way to get what your body needs.

If heart disease is the number one killer of men- and it is- and drinking a pint of beer a day reduces the risk of heart disease by THIRTY PERCENT, then your resistance without bible of it is sinful.

No.. it is honored by God who gave me the freedom to glorify him with or without it. In all you do do it for the glory of God.. not self indulgence.

It is no different than the JW's ridiculous conviction about blood transfusions.

Only in your mind, but not according to scripture

 

[Luke2427]

You JUST did!

Whatever.:BangHead:

Funny, I thought my length of days was determined by God alone, not my alcoholic consumption.

That's silly.

Oh, and by the way, there is more scientific data out there that grapes and other foods give you more of what you need than wine and beer. That is a fact too.

No there's not. Part of the benefit of beer in the study is that alcohol thins blood and helps prevent blood clots. But even if there was, it would still be wrong for one to preach that you should abstain from beer when beer is preferable to many millions of people over Welch's grape juice.

So while wine and beer 'can' help, they are not the best way to get what your body needs.

Thirty percent is what the study says. Beat that. And even if you could it would still be stupid to demand that one not also partake in a pint of beer a day when not only is it VERY GOOD for you but it is also enjoyable to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people around the world.

No.. it is honored by God who gave me the freedom to glorify him with or without it. In all you do do it for the glory of God.. not self indulgence.

Enjoying with thankful hearts what God gave is not self indulgence.

Only in your mind, but not according to scripture

Yea, according to Scripture. God tells his people in one place to go and by strong drink and rejoice before him. In other places the Scripture says that God made the wine that makes merry the heart of man. For eighteen hundred years almost NO CHRISTIAN preached that the responsible consumption of alcohol was a sin.

This is, as I said earlier, an ignorance hic-up like tongues, int he history of Christianity.

Now when you preach teetotalism in your church and a good Christian man who thinks you know what you are talking about blindly follows you and that man stops drinking a pint of beer a day, and he contracts heart disease and has a heart attack and dies- you should know- you helped kill him with your phariseeism.

Now, maybe you don't do that. I always thought of you as more intelligent than to believe in teetotalism (to be distinguished from personal abstentionism which is where I think you are confused here). But there are thousands of ignorant preachers who do preach that nonsense and they ought to be resisted.

 

[convicted1]

Paul was considerate of ignorant Christians who believed in abstinence in I Corinthians 8 so long as they kept it as a personal conviction.

I think we all believe in that.

There are ignorant Christians today who think it is a sin for a woman to wear pants. So in consideration of those ignorant Christians, when we visit them in their home my wife and daughters do not wear pants.

We are all for that.

But what all of us should condemn is the moment when stupidity goes public. It's OK for you to believe all kinds of stupid things like King James Only, no pants on women, and teetotalism. But it is not ok for you to take those stupid beliefs public. Do you see?

That's why on the one hand Paul was paitient with ignorant people so long as they kept their ignorance to themselves in I Corinthians 8. But he obliterated the ignorance of people who PREACH such stupidity in I Timothy 4 (see the other thread along these lines.)

What is sin is not one's personal beliefs in all kinds of stupidity. What is sin is when those personal beliefs keep you from partaking in things that could save your life. And what's worse than that is when you take that stupidity public.

It is similar to the idiotic beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses about blood transfusion. If they want to believe that nonsense- fine. But when they kill their children by it and convert others to it- they ought to be resisted.

Calling the Brethern ignorant.....I know you mean ignorant in the way of not knowing any better, such as I am ignorant of flying a chopper, is no way to get them on your side, Brother. You can present the prettiest argument, chalked full of scriptural proofs, and all they are going to hear......and on here, "see", and they'll tune the rest out.


IOW, one should choose their words wisely.

 

[Luke2427]

Calling the Brethern ignorant.....I know you mean ignorant in the way of not knowing any better, such as I am ignorant of flying a chopper, is no way to get them on your side, Brother. You can present the prettiest argument, chalked full of scriptural proofs, and all they are going to hear......and on here, "see", and they'll tune the rest out.


IOW, one should choose their words wisely.

You're not going to reach those who have a problem with being called ignorant in areas where they really are ignorant anyway.

I believed these same silly things in my ignorance for years and so long as I thought of myself as pious and knowledgeable, none would persuade me of the truth on these matters.

It was not until my spirit was humbled down in such a way that one could call me ignorant and I'd say, "You have called it right," that I was able to come out of such foolishness.

I use Paul's words. He said there were those who "have knowledge" and there were those who were "weak brethren."

Jesus did not hold punches when it came to the Pharisees. He spoke differently from conventional ministerial talk. He "spake with authority, not as the scribes and Pharisees."

He called them vipers, whited sepulchers, hypocrites who make proselytes two fold more the children of hell than themselves and he identified their problem: He said they "teach for doctrine the traditions of men."

That's what this teetotalism business is. It is a tradition that developed a little in England in the 1830's and caught fire here a few decades later in the temperance movement among Methodists with all of their camp meeting preaching and such. Prohibition was born out of that. And Phariseeism has been rather common on this issue ever since.

It is not a Bible doctrine. It is a silly tradition.

You don't break a rock with cream puff pies. You break it with a hammer. When anyone is so proud that they preach such silly traditions- they are hardened in their self-righteousness. God said to Jeremiah concerning his Word for such people: "Is my word not a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"

 

[Aaron]

So then don't drink in front of stupid Christians- because that is EXACTLY what Paul meant by weaker brother- dumb Christians. He said there are two types of people along these lines- those that "have knowledge" and the "weaker brothers".

The arrogance behind this statement is phenomenal. If that is what Paul meant that is what he would have said. He said "weak in the faith." Faith and knowledge are not the same things. Knowledge puffeth up and your pride is loud and clear.

When Paul said to render love and service unto the woman as unto the weaker vessel, did he mean more dumb and stupid?

Charity would never think to call those who have a conscience toward certain meats or alcohol stupid or dumb, because love truly understands what the issue is. And it is a matter of faith.