Is Drinking, Smoking, and Dipping a Sin

[EdSutton]

This is not true. Chemicals absolutely enter the bloodstream through the skin. For instance there are dermal patches for hormone replacement therapy, birth control, nitroglycerine, and many others. Not to mention care should be taken when using pesticides. Even Bengay can be lethal when used incorrectly.

You are right, here, especially about the pesticides, and I am a farmer who has to be aware of these dangers, and also for tobacco workers, nicotine poisoning.

And don't forget "nicotine patches" for those tryng to quit smoking, a widely used technique, these days.

And I received dermal patches when I had both heart surgery and, a year later, cancer surgery. Thank God I seem to be recovering fairly well with no apparent signs (CAT scan) that the cancer is still present anywhere in my body.

Ed

 

[Amy.G]

You are right, here, especially about the pesticides, and I am a farmer who has to be aware of these dangers, and also for tobacco workers, nicotine poisoning.

And I received dermal patches when I had both heart surgery and, a year later, cancer surgery. Thank God I seem to be recovering fairly well with no apparent signs (CAT scan) that the cancer is still present anywhere in my body.

Ed

Praise God! I'm so happy that you are cancer free!:thumbs:

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Yes. A cloak of his righteosness, not yours.

And nobody here is saying Christ was a wino. But saying he never touched the stuff, and saying those who do won't recognize him is hogwash. Prove it.

The reason I'll recognize him, is his promise to me. I ,m not a drunkard, but once was. Praise God he lifted me out of that swamp, and the last thing I will do is go into a sleazy bar and order a beer. That does not give me the right to tell somebody else they can't possibly be saved because they don't walk with the same understanding I do.

You, sir, have zero authority to tell me who Christ will recognize and who he won't. People like you damage the word of God, turning it into who's saved and who's not, by their works. There is no list of do's & don't's in Christianity. Chritianity is about what's been DONE, on the cross, with no help at all from humans. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit, not a bunch of self-pious folks who stand on scripture more than they read it.

Over, & out.

By authority of the Scripture I can tell you who will recognize Him and who will not. Those who look for a Jesus who is pictured differently than the one who died for mankind, those who want the one who died to save man from sin to allow sin, will not recognize Him until it is too late... if they wait until His coming in clouds, they will be lieve too late.

 

[Linda64]

This is not true. Chemicals absolutely enter the bloodstream through the skin. For instance there are dermal patches for hormone replacement therapy, birth control, nitroglycerine, and many others. Not to mention care should be taken when using pesticides. Even Bengay can be lethal when used incorrectly.

Dermal patches are made to enter the bloodstream--they really aren't topical. What I'm talking about, that npetreley fails to understand, is that rubbing alcohol and most topical medications and lotions (including hand lotions) are simply MEANT to be topical--and do not enter the bloodstream by simply rubbing them on your skin. Topical substances, that are meant to be topical only, will not enter your bloodstream. These substances states specifically (FOR EXTERNAL USE ONLY). That would not include dermal patches, which are not meant to be topical--they are meant to put a chemical into the body.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

But saying he never touched the stuff, and saying those who do won't recognize him is hogwash. Prove it.

Curtis, we cannot prove it to you, because your heart is hardened to the truth here. Until the Lord reveals it to you, you will continue to stubbornly believe the lie that Jesus drank alcohol.

 

[mcdirector]

I keep reading some of these posts thinking that I must be missing something or misreading something. Surely I am not seeing the questioning of the salvation of those that think the wine in the New Testament was fermented and not grape juice?

 

[EdSutton]

Dermal patches are made to enter the bloodstream--they really aren't topical. What I'm talking about, that npetreley fails to understand, is that rubbing alcohol and most topical medications and lotions (including hand lotions) are simply MEANT to be topical--and do not enter the bloodstream by simply rubbing them on your skin. Topical substances, that are meant to be topical only, will not enter your bloodstream. These substances states specifically (FOR EXTERNAL USE ONLY). That would not include dermal patches, which are not meant to be topical--they are meant to put a chemical into the body.

Liniments, and 'horse liniment' (DMSO) which incidentaly is not meant to be used by humans, although much, if not most of it, is used in this manner, as it is an extremely good analgesic and pain reliever, will certainly enter muscles and then the bloodstream. And liniments are classified as "topical".

FTR, the reason DMSO is "prohibited" for human use, is that it is also a very good solvent on many chemicals, and can transport such things as pesticides and other toxins, including many poisonous metal compounds, such as lead, mercury, and others, if is is 'contaminated' or often comes into contact, in any way by them, into the bloodstream. Even "harmless in themselves" residues that are on the skin, can enter the body by this contact.

So if you are going to use the stuff, in 'defiance' of the label warnings, wash very thoroughly your hands and the place of application, to be safer. BTW, you can actually smell this on your breath, in less than five minutes, if you do so. And I certainly do know this, several times over, to be a fact. But the pain was certainly lessend.

Ed

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

Some wine in the New Testament was nothing more than grape juice, MC. Some was fermented wine.

Context, context.

And yes, if one is looking for a Jesus who drank alcoholic wine and condones the drinking of alcoholic wine, one is looking for the wrong Jesus.

1 John 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

How can Christ be pure if He drank the poison of dragons? How can He be pure if He drank that which at the last biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder?

Just as He is pure, those who have the hope of Christ purify themselves. As the Spirit reveals to man the things that are contrary to the purity and holiness of Jesus Christ, man purifies himself. Man gets rid of those things.

If man is unwilling to change, unwilling to give up that which is clearly unclean in his life, man is doomed.

 

[mcdirector]

I have read this thread from the beginning and I don't remember anyone condoning the drinking of alcoholic beverages. As a matter of fact, I clearly remember people saying that they don't condone the drinking of alcohol - including wine. I, with many others, believe that wine is wine and juice is juice even in the New Testament.

I just wanted to be clear on the implications of what I was reading here.

 

[tinytim]

Some may not be implying that those that believe when the Bible says wine, it means wine, is not saved...

But they are implying that those that don't believe that wine is wine is better Christians than others...

How did the Corinthian church become drunk, and Paul had to set them straight if they were drinking Juice?...

The Bible says wine....God doesn't make mistakes... He meant what He said... it was wine.

Now what degree of wine, that is where I get fuzzy...

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

In saying that Jesus drank an alcoholic wine, they are not only blaspheming the Lord, but are also condoning the consumption of alcohol. They are providing an excuse for others reading this thread to say 'well, if Jesus drank it, it has to be ok for me to drink it as well.'

They are deceiving others with the lie that Jesus drank alcoholic wine and being deceived themselves into believing that lie.

 

[EdSutton]

.

How did the Corinthian church become drunk, and Paul had to set them straight if they were drinking Juice?...

Maybe it was a bottle of [SIZE=-1]V8®[/SIZE], which had been opened and allowed to set at room temperature for a day, and had started to ferment with an apparent alcoholic tinge.

And, BTW, tomatoes and cucumbers are also "fruit of the vine", and the leading ingredient in [SIZE=-1]V8®, is tomato juice.

Outta curiosity, how come these threads do not recognize the apparent difference between one of the qualifications for elder and deacon?

The KJV, at least, recognizes that one of the qualifications for an elder is "not given to wine", and that for deacon is "not given to much wine".

Doesn't that show a difference, or did Scripture make a mistake, here in differentiating with the word "much"?

Ed
[/SIZE]

 

[tinytim]

Too MUCH grape juice makes you turn purple!!!

 

[webdog]

I have read this thread from the beginning and I don't remember anyone condoning the drinking of alcoholic beverages. As a matter of fact, I clearly remember people saying that they don't condone the drinking of alcohol - including wine. I, with many others, believe that wine is wine and juice is juice even in the New Testament.

I just wanted to be clear on the implications of what I was reading here.

While I dont' condone it for alcoholics, those under age, used to abuse, or for those who think it's sinful, I do condone it for the rest. I treat it the same way I do foods containing saturated fats...do not consume in excess, and only on occasion.

 

[mcdirector]

Thank you webdog. Honestly, I stand with you. I may chose not to drink. I choose not to drink colas either, but not because a glass of wine is grievious. On the not condoning - several previously had said that they are against it, but felt the wine of the NT was alcoholic.

The implications I'm concerned with though are those that say those of us that think that Jesus drank alcoholic wine are not saved.

 

[mcdirector]

Too MUCH grape juice makes you turn purple!!!

Have I told you recently that you are SILLY!

You too Ed, you too

 

[Magnetic Poles]

In saying that Jesus drank an alcoholic wine, they are not only blaspheming the Lord,

Really, now? How do you figure?

Besides, it has been proven that wine in moderation has some health benefits, that even plain old Welch's (or Sam's Choice) can't match.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

He figures logically. If it's a sin to drink, and then we say that Jesus drank, then we say that Jesus sinned, which is nothing short of blasphemy.

I've always found it ironic that "new wine" is supposed to be the good stuff, and yet it was "new wine" on which the Apostles were accused of being drunk, so obviously it was known that one could become drunk on new wine.

Michael

 

[Accountable]

Accountable? You should already know the answer to that. That is why I did not answer the foolish question.

So by your answer I can safely gatherthat you partake of the other poisons that you know are causing damage to your body but these wouldn't be sinful like smoing and drinking would be.

More people in America die yearly of heart disease from these other poisons than you are willing to admit. I'm suprised that you would call a question dealing with poison a "foolish" question. For my "foolish" question, you have related a "foolish" answer.

I guess that through your system, we can pick and choose what is sin. Pick out the ones that we don't do and preach on them but deny the very one's we commit daily as sin and just don't mention them.

My question still stands and it is more relevant thaan ever. You chose to say smoking was a sin due to it's harmful cancer causing agents yet refuse to say whether or not it is okay to consume other poisonous cancer causing agents.

So from what I gather, it is a sin to smoke poison but it is permitted to chew up and swallow poison. It is a sin for the lungs but not a sin for the stomach.

I think you need to evaluate my "foolish" question again.

Sin is sin, regardless how it is done.

 

[npetreley]

Here's a factoid for you: Transdermal systems (like nicotine patches) sometimes use resevoirs of skin penetration enhancers -- that is, chemicals that permeate the skin easily, and so help the medicine get into your bloodstream.

Guess what one of the "skin penetration enhancers" is?

Wait for it ----

Alcohol. Why? Because alcohol permeates your skin and gets into your bloodstream so easily.

Just because something says "topical" on the bottle or tube doesn't mean it doesn't get into your bloodstream. If it has alcohol in it, it gets into your bloodstream. That's why some people are trying to get cosmetics manufacturers to stop using Isopropyl alcohol in cosmetics and hair care products. It's getting into the bloodstream and destroying intestinal flora. Ethyl alcohol, however, does not destry intestinal flora. Ethyl alcohol is the same alcohol that is in wine.