-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Legalism
- Thread starter Berean
- Start date
- Status
...according to driving laws in America that set a limit on "drunk driving" (actually it is now called impaired driving to cover more than just alcohol)
Being buzzed is not being drunk.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
...according to driving laws in America that set a limit on "drunk driving" (actually it is now called impaired driving to cover more than just alcohol)
Just as dangerous though.
So is rock climbing, but it is not forbidden as well
Being buzzed is not dangerous, but operating a vehicle while buzzed is. It is actually more dangerous to do so lacking sleep.
Please quote me where I said that. Misquoting me, misconstruing my words adds up to lying does it not?
I said, "drinking is more of a drain on the health system than smoking is."
There is a difference between one's personal health and "the health system."
Drinking leads to excessive and drunkenness. It leads to automobile accidents and all the surgeries that result from the horrific accidents. It leads to cirrhosis of the liver and the deaths that result from that disease, or the costly liver transplants that are needed. I had to preach at the funeral of an unsaved man who died from cirrhosis of the liver directly attributed to his drunkenness. He was laid up in the hospital for weeks before he actually died. It is a killer that divides families--a home-wrecker. The poverty it causes by splitting homes causes more sickness among single family homes that can't afford health care. The list goes on and on.
Care to rethink your words. Read more carefully next time.
I misunderstood you...but I would not call it "lying"
I still disagree, though. I'm sure you can provide factual data supporting your notion...or you are lying
Heart disease and cancer are more of a strain on our "health system" than alcoholism related illnesses.Obesity outranks both smoking and drinking on the "health system". I guess eating is sinful as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
paul wassona
New Member
Makes you a legalist! hahahahaha! You deny people who want wine for communion by serving just juice, legalist!
How is that legalism? If I give you a dollar will you buy a clue?
paul wassona
New Member
I have an addictive personality; my wife is addicted to it. WHAT AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL CORRESPONDS WITH A % LEVEL OF BEING A DRUNKARD? One oz. equals a 1% drunk? Maybe it's just as legalistic to call others legalists, and with bitter words at that?
...and if it takes you 4 hamburgers to be a glutton, is eating 1 equal to being a 25% glutton?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Are you bitter Paul? I'm not. Look at the Apostle Paul's discourse with food offered to idols. He didn't prohibit christians from eating this food. But what he did say is that for those who believe it to be sin for them it is sin. He also catagorizes them as weeker Brothers. In the case of Alcohol I follow this principle. There are people who are born alcoholics. They have a gene that makes them suseptable to drunkedness like many american natives. For them one drink will lead to drunkedness. It is my responsibility not to tempt you. To you I say don't drink at all. For others who do not have this predisposition I say drink moderately. A legalist says its wrong altogether. Interesting to note 150 years ago ministers were saying women should cover their ankle and wrist not to entice men sexually but did not comment on showing bust which those dresses did. Times have changed but legalism is still the same.
Has Harold Garvey come back under another user name?
I dont' think so. Harold Garvey had a poor grasp of the English language (ironic, isn't it?). Paul wassona can at least formulate a complete sentence.
Last edited by a moderator:
So, I suppose you have a DNA test done on all people before you speak to them about drinking?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No. but they should know who they are.
How does a person know if they have this gene you are speaking about? Should all people get a DNA test done prior to any discussions of drinking and then hand those results out to the people they will speak to drinking about?
You have told us that you will tell people with the gene to not drink at all and those without the gene to drink moderately. I'm simply asking how you figure out who has the gene or not?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
A person should know if they are an alcoholic or not. I don't know if the gene is testable and I think in some instances it is but there are also behavioral issues that cause the disease as well. People that are suseptable to Alcoholism should stay away. Not everyone is. People who cannot drink with out getting drunk is a good example of the kind of person that should stay away from it.
The question is how do you know who these people are prior to speaking to them? You said that you would say different things to the different type of person. So how do you do it? You've said you do something, all I'm wondering is how you do it? You keep saying that a person should know, but based on you statements, you think you can tell them apart. How do you do it?
How would you counsel a 21 year old that has never had a drop to drink? How do you know if he has this "gene" or not?
I'm not sure why is this an issue. There are people who are predisposed to being overweight. We treat them the same in regards to gluttony. However, they need to know their personal limit as to what conssitutes gluttony. The same with being an alcoholic. The rule is the same for all: Avoid drunkenness. However, a person disposed to alcoholism will probably need to avoid alcohol entirely. That doesn't mean all must avoid alcohol entirely, neither does it mean that a person disposed to alcoholism can consume alcohol like a person not so disposed.
- Status