Have a Beer! It may be sinful NOT TO!

[Skandelon]

I wouldn't condemn your use as described

I wouldn't care if you did because I stopped caring about gaining man's approval when I began walking in freedom!

Romans 8:1 is a very freeing passage...along with many more. :godisgood:

, that is, if "setting the mood" is more important to you than the fact that you are numbing your senses.

:laugh: I wouldn't call what I've experienced 'numbing,' but that is for another discussion.

 

[Bronconagurski]

I wouldn't care if you did because I stopped caring about gaining man's approval when I began walking in freedom!

Romans 8:1 is a very freeing passage...along with many more. :godisgood:


:laugh: I wouldn't call what I've experienced 'numbing,' but that is for another discussion.

Even if drinking alcohol was a sin, you wouldn't be condemned for it anyway. But man isn't the one you need to be concerned about should you sin. God is the one who could issue chastisement, should He so choose.

 

[Luke2427]

Allan and Gina,

As has been discussed before, I do believe Luke has a tendency to overstate his case...or do so in a relatively harsh manner, making it more difficult to accept or rationally discuss. He also tends to offend with his phrasing, as you both have pointed out. (I love him and agree with him on this point, but openly admit he should work on his presentation)

However, with that said, I don't THINK Luke is attempting to say that people shouldn't abstain, if that is what they choose to do in faith. He seems to be arguing for freedom, which would obviously include the freedom to not drink. In fact, it would be wise for someone to abstain if they were prone to such addictions or if they had a history with problems.

Certainly.


I said in the title of this thread "it MAY be sinful not to."

The plain implication is that it may not.

My point is, I think obviously, not that every person should drink.

Honestly, I think I made that clear about a dozen times when I said, "I don't begrudge anyone their right to abstain."

It is not a sin for most people not to drink. It depends on their motives, but if one chooses to abstain for the right motives- GREAT!!!


I have said repeatedly that the sin part comes in when one abstains thinking it is a sin and it puts him at a THIRTY PERCENT GREATER risk of heart disease which is the number one killer of men.

Consider this scenario. A man likes beer in his twenties. He drinks about a pint a day. Research indicates that if he continues this practice he is THIRTY PERCENT LESS LIKELY TO CONTRACT THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF MEN.

But he has something against him. He goes to a backward fundamentalist type church and his preacher is dumb. (I know Skan, this is the harshness you keep talking about. I do it on purpose). This preacher preaches that alcohol is "LIQUID DEVIL!!" [in the voice of one of the Swamp People]. The young man swears off drinking "BY THE BARREL OR BY THE THIMBLE FULL!!!" [in the accent of the folks on Lizard Lick Towing].

But this young man has a terrible history of heart disease on BOTH SIDES OF HIS FAMILY.

Here is what I am saying. There is a lot of sin the leads to this mans death by a heart attack at age 44 leaving a family of three teenagers, a toddler and an unemployed wife behind to fend for themselves.

There's the sin of stupidity and arrogance on the part of the preacher.

There's the same sin on the part of the movement of which that preacher is a part.

There's the sin of all people involved calling that which God calls good- evil.

Finally, there's the sin of the young man who should be a more critical thinker, who should not have shunned a practice that would have reduced his risk of heart disease which killed him by THIRTY PERCENT. This action on his part stole from his children a very needed father, stole from his wife a very needed husband, etc...

I THINK Luke is saying (or maybe I should just speak for myself on this point) is that people shouldn't abstain because they believe it is sinful to consume alcohol. They should understand that partaking is permissible but may not be beneficial and thus make a decision based on a Faith based relationship, not based on shame, obligation or guilt. Temperance preaching, which openly condemns those who choose to partake, is wrong. That is sinful preaching and is just as bad as the Judiazers who preached that Gentiles had to abstain from meat or get circumcised. That kind of preaching over the years has lead some to abstain and look down upon others who don't. That causes others to stumble as well.

Very well said.

 

[Allan]

I have said repeatedly that the sin part comes in when one abstains thinking it is a sin and it puts him at a THIRTY PERCENT GREATER risk of heart disease which is the number one killer of men.

The above is where, in my eyes, you keep messing up.
1. The scripture never, not once ever, states that if a person thinks it is sin to drink (or eat meat -and you know the passage this comes from) that it is a sin for them. In fact it states the very OPPOSITE. It is NOT sin but for the person who offends them in doing such, or causes them to stumble, THEY are the sinners, not the one who considers it wrong.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't come along side them and encourage them through study to understand the fullness of scripture however them having such a view is not sinful.. at least according to scripture.

2. Your 30% isn't factual nor is it held by any of the creditable health organizations. For one, most all agree that it is possibly beneficial for older men but men in their 20's and 30's it could can more harm than good. Look back at my last post or two. I give what Mayo Clinic states on the subject.

Another issue with your assumption is that the potential benefit (which is actually less than 30% by these institutions, and the amount consumed is 4 oz. less as well) is potential for SOME not all.

Consider this scenario. A man likes beer in his twenties. He drinks about a pint a day. Research indicates that if he continues this practice he is THIRTY PERCENT LESS LIKELY TO CONTRACT THE NUMBER ONE KILLER OF MEN.

Less than a pint a day, and if the man simply exercises and eats nominally healthy, he never has to take a swallow and has a HIGHER chance of not contracting the disease.

Here is what I am saying. There is a lot of sin the leads to this mans death by a heart attack at age 44 leaving a family of three teenagers, a toddler and an unemployed wife behind to fend for themselves.

And the ex-drunkard, who was encouraged to drink, even when he knew he should not but was told he was an immature christian because he couldn't handle himself in Christ when his brothers were thirsty for a good brew. Of which brought him back to drinking (encouraged by his blessed Godly brothers) and into bondage once again, who after hitting his wife in his drunken stupor, and then suddenly ashamed of what he did and had become again, left the house and died in a car accident, leaving his wife and two preteen kids, what of that man.

This isn't an exaggeration, but actually happened and I personally know the family and church where happened (back in SC). What is sad, is that those 'brothers' still take no responsibility in the man's action as it is their God given freedom to drink and no one should tell them when they should drink or not. By their own statement it was the man's fault for letting it get the best of him. That was 9 years ago, and 4 of those gentlemen today are in AA trying to get over their additions, one of which confesses he was an alcoholic during that time and prior but no one but him knew.

LISTEN - I'm not stating this is the norm but it is a legitimate story and true, and though a bit extreme, in truth it does happen. I'm not advocating NOT drinking due to this, I'm just saying there is another side of the coin you are ignoring whether intentionally or not but one that is just as valid and needs to be brought into the evaluation.

There's the sin of stupidity and arrogance on the part of the preacher.

The sin is in the arrogance of the preacher or man who wishes to change their mind so they will begin drinking or at least let the others drink, and NOT so that the weak Christian might understand better the scriptures. It is most often about the person who wants to drink and not other persons spiritual growth and relationship with God. The sin there is that which is not of love for thy brother - True love is selfless - giving up our lives for one another as Christ gave His life for us. (1 John 3:16)

There's the same sin on the part of the movement of which that preacher is a part.

While it might not be 100% right, I commend them for upholding the faith and teaching it as they understand it. At the very least, you have a preacher that is being faithful to what he knows and doing what he is called to do - preach and teach the word of God. I wish more would have the guts to do it.

I'm not speaking down to you but I would encourage you to meditate upon Romans 14, it deals with this very thing.

There's the sin of all people involved calling that which God calls good- evil.

Finally, there's the sin of the young man who should be a more critical thinker, who should not have shunned a practice that would have reduced his risk of heart disease which killed him by THIRTY PERCENT. This action on his part stole from his children a very needed father, stole from his wife a very needed husband, etc...

It is sad that you bow down to the 30% marker as if that gives drinking a some biblical standing, when in fact that average is lower, and not for many, potentially not beneficial for men in their 20 and 30's.

 

[Luke2427]

The above is where, in my eyes, you keep messing up.
1. The scripture never, not once ever, states that if a person thinks it is sin to drink (or eat meat -and you know the passage this comes from) that it is a sin for them. In fact it states the very OPPOSITE. It is NOT sin but for the person who offends them in doing such, or causes them to stumble, THEY are the sinners, not the one who considers it wrong.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't come along side them and encourage them through study to understand the fullness of scripture however them having such a view is not sinful.. at least according to scripture.

Yes it is.

It is a sin to call evil that which God calls good.

2. Your 30% isn't factual nor is it held by any of the creditable health organizations. For one, most all agree that it is possibly beneficial for older men but men in their 20's and 30's it could can more harm than good. Look back at my last post or two. I give what Mayo Clinic states on the subject.

Another issue with your assumption is that the potential benefit (which is actually less than 30% by these institutions, and the amount consumed is 4 oz. less as well) is potential for SOME not all.

I think the stat IS reliable, but even YOUR stat supports it. Four ounces less???

Your going to quibble over that???

Less than a pint a day, and if the man simply exercises and eats nominally healthy, he never has to take a swallow and has a HIGHER chance of not contracting the disease.

Most of humanity does not exercise regularly. So drinking beer is a good thing for those people who are simply not going to exercise.


In fact it is a good thing for folks who DO exercise.

And the ex-drunkard, who was encouraged to drink, even when he knew he should not but was told he was an immature christian because he couldn't handle himself in Christ when his brothers were thirsty for a good brew. Of which brought him back to drinking (encouraged by his blessed Godly brothers) and into bondage once again, who after hitting his wife in his drunken stupor, and then suddenly ashamed of what he did and had become again, left the house and died in a car accident, leaving his wife and two preteen kids, what of that man.

What MORON on earth would encourage such a man to return to drinking??

This anecdote has nothing to do with this conversation.

This thread is not about HOW TO preach alcohol. If it were I'd state in the OP that preaching on this subject, as is the case with MANY subjects, requires wisdom and the promotion of restraint.

This isn't an exaggeration, but actually happened and I personally know the family and church where happened (back in SC). What is sad, is that those 'brothers' still take no responsibility in the man's action as it is their God given freedom to drink and no one should tell them when they should drink or not. By their own statement it was the man's fault for letting it get the best of him. That was 9 years ago, and 4 of those gentlemen today are in AA trying to get over their additions, one of which confesses he was an alcoholic during that time and prior but no one but him knew.

So you would swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction and REFUSE to condemn the phariseeism of teetotalism??

The sin is in the arrogance of the preacher or man who wishes to change their mind so they will begin drinking or at least let the others drink, and NOT so that the weak Christian might understand better the scriptures.

This is wrong- because a preacher who would not preach such subjects responsibly shouldn't be preaching at all.

Nobody is advocating such nonsense.

 

[Allan]

Yes it is.

It is a sin to call evil that which God calls good.

Context.. they know what is good and that it IS good but choose to call it evil.. and vise-versa

Again, reread and mediate on Romans 14, it deals with this very issue.

I think the stat IS reliable, but even YOUR stat supports it. Four ounces less???

Your going to quibble over that???

Hey, you were quoting facts.

Most of humanity does not exercise regularly. So drinking beer is a good thing for those people who are simply not going to exercise.


In fact it is a good thing for folks who DO exercise.

So you condone laziness in favor of being able to drink to be healthy?

And no, it isn't a fact.

What MORON on earth would encourage such a man to return to drinking??

This anecdote has nothing to do with this conversation.

It has everything to do with the conversation.

So you would swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction and REFUSE to condemn the phariseeism of teetotalism??

You swung it too far in the other direction and showed you the converse of it.
Who says I REFUSE. I think you might need to back up and re-read what I have stated.

This is wrong- because a preacher who would not preach such subjects responsibly shouldn't be preaching at all.

And many would say the same thing about Calvinism, or non-Calvinism, or whatever they thought didn't go in line with their thinking/camp.

I didn't say it wasn't wrong either, I just said I commend him for standing up for what he believes is right. Not that this doesn't imply he is wrong nor that he should stay in a wrong view.

HOwever I would much rather a minister who stands for what he believes than one who panders to all. Again, coming along side and walking through the scriptures together is what we are to do if we find such a one, and do so in love.

 

[saturneptune]

However I would much rather a minister who stands for what he believes than one who panders to all. Again, coming along side and walking through the scriptures together is what we are to do if we find such a one, and do so in love.

After the six way bypass operation three years ago, the doctor told me to drink a glass of wine everyday. My pastor was in the room when he said this. Our pastor is pretty much against drinking, and mentions it quite often in sermons. At the time, my mind was really not on the pastor's presence, but on my mortality. Anyway, the reason I never started the wine routine is because I knew what would happen from past drinking patterns, so I stay away from it. My other reasoning is that it is a terrible witness for those I know. It bothers my wife, and that right there is enough. She does not even like to sit near the bar in restaurants.

Having said all of that, I do not feel from Scripture that gives me any right to come to the conclusion that it is wrong to drink for those who do it in moderation. I do think the person who actually drinks in moderation are few in numbers, and for the most part, people do drink for the buzz.

 

[Luke2427]

Context.. they know what is good and that it IS good but choose to call it evil.. and vise-versa

Again, reread and mediate on Romans 14, it deals with this very issue.

The context of the whole of Scripture shows that calling something evil that God calls good is always sin.

MOST people who do it don't KNOW they are doing it. Saying Allah is God is SIN whether you KNOW he is not or not.

Full knowledge is not necessary for an action to qualify as sin. In fact, the idea of "darkness" in the Scripture is USUALLY about ignorance. And it is out of this darkness that MOST sin is committed.

Hey, you were quoting facts.

You quibble over four ounce difference between our two studies. Amazing.

So you condone laziness in favor of being able to drink to be healthy?

Look, you're a fat guy, right? You should exercise more, right? That is a picture of you in the avatar, right? I should, too.

One of the things I can do to help me since I don't exercise as much as I should, like you, is drink beer (I don't, BTW.)

Your studies and mine AGREE that there are health benefits. Your study does not say that my study conclusions are wrong. They are probably right. Your study simply says that they are not 100% conclusive.

Most humans take medicines at some point in their lives because they haven't lived perfectly healthy all of their lives.

You will probably have to take blood thinners one day because you are fat. Would it be right for me to say to you- "You taking those blood thinners advocates laziness!!!"

Nope.

And no, it isn't a fact.

Yes it is.

It has everything to do with the conversation.

It has nothing to do with this conversation.

You swung it too far in the other direction and showed you the converse of it.

No I didn't.

I didn't say it wasn't wrong either, I just said I commend him for standing up for what he believes is right.

EXCELLENT!!

That's what I am doing on this thread.

I wait with baited breath for my commendation from you, Allan.

I'm waiting......

HOwever I would much rather a minister who stands for what he believes than one who panders to all.

Which is what most fundies do- they preach against stuff that is not sin in the Bible because their other fundy buddies do it. It's pandering. I grew up a fundy. I've seen many of them do it.

 

[Luke2427]

After the six way bypass operation three years ago, the doctor told me to drink a glass of wine everyday. My pastor was in the room when he said this. Our pastor is pretty much against drinking, and mentions it quite often in sermons. At the time, my mind was really not on the pastor's presence, but on my mortality. Anyway, the reason I never started the wine routine is because I knew what would happen from past drinking patterns, so I stay away from it. My other reasoning is that it is a terrible witness for those I know. It bothers my wife, and that right there is enough. She does not even like to sit near the bar in restaurants.

Having said all of that, I do not feel from Scripture that gives me any right to come to the conclusion that it is wrong to drink for those who do it in moderation. I do think the person who actually drinks in moderation are few in numbers, and for the most part, people do drink for the buzz.

They are not few who drink in moderation though, brother.

WHOLE NATIONS DO IT.

The number of people that drink a beer or two a day on average around the world is undoubtedly ASTONISHING.

I bet, if your church is of any size, that you have numerous people who drink in your church.

When you consider the sheer volume of alcohol that is consumed in this country and you factor in the number of people who keep their jobs and have never had DUI's- you MUST come to the conclusion that the number of people who drink AT LEAST SOMEWHAT responsibly is VAST. There's just not enough drunken bums in America to drink up all the alcohol that is sold each year in this country. There must be hundreds of THOUSANDS of drinkers who are not drunks.

 

[blackbird]

Thread has reached and surpassed the page limit and will be terminated

Blackbird