That fact many people drink on a regular basis does not logically support the reasoning in an argument that it is not harmful or should be used.
The stating from the Op that 95% do not become “alcoholics” is being based on a biased ambiguous term and does not logically support the reasoning in an argument that it is not harmful or should be used.
If one can’t “easily” stop drinking starting tomorrow and cannot continue to not drink comfortably for an extended amount of time and be able live without becoming emotionally stressed because of this action then there is significant merit to that they are indeed struggling at a level of addiction to alcohol that would fit my definition of one being an alcoholic.
Out of the many people that I could observe and recognize as having the stereotypical characteristics of a regular drinker before any word about alcohol is mentioned I would guess that less than 5% would consider themselves an alcoholic. Again:
Ben, this is just your definition versus the definition of those who are trained to and make a living defining such things.
The World Health Organization says indicates that above 95 percent of people who drink do not have a drinking problem.
My religious belief does not advocate that one should not drink at all. But my values which come from religious beliefs do often separate my definition from others when it comes to defining “moderate” use of alcohol because of the obvious influences on one’s nature, their spirit - their reasoning and judgment being altered and coming from this substance which, believe or not, I have come to recognize. What I would consider common sense is that alcohol is abused in the world at epidemic proportions and that is enough to speak out against and warn of its use.
It is not at epidemic proportions. It simply is not.
Heart disease is WAY more deadly than alcohol in this country.
But we simply don't hear the preaching against HDL that we hear against alcohol.
I would not be pharisaical about warning others not to drink or dogmatic about the Bible saying it is a sin but even if someone else is preaching such it does not justify the use of alcohol in any way nor does such take away from that the obvious harmful, life altering effects should honestly be considered by every individual. Much more personal responsibility should be expected to come from a Christian in this matter, especially a leader of the flock in this area in that he has been practically informed and wanting to bring about and teach how to achieve the healthiest results rather than be motivated to be acting to condone his own ways or possible – and obviously probable shortcomings. I am very understanding that pastors are human like everyone else but I do expect them to strive for a higher standard and to try to present a good and reasonable example in how to achieve excellence.
The higher standard argument is not applicable. You don't just get to arbitrarily pick standards by which you hold pastors accountable to.
You say, "I expect pastors not to drink ANY alcohol because I expect them to hold to a higher standard."
Another might say, "I expect pastors not to have sex because I expect them to hold a higher standard."
Another might say, "I expect pastors to wear robes in public because I expect them to hold a higher standard."
The higher standard thing is arbitrary.
God sets the standards that pastors ought to hold to highly. Not Benji.
You see?
