Recent Studies on Heart Health

[yabba]

So did anybody else notice that the article Jim posted said nothing about harmfull effects of alcohol in moderation? It did mention harmfull effects from over drinking or mixing alcohol with medication, but where was the indictment of moderation?

Jim, once again you are reading into things and misconsturing statements just so they are in line with your beliefs. Your quote of Gold Dragon is easy proof of this. You thought his post proved your assumption but you were wrong.

If you wish to not drink, don't.

And by the way, the article did not say the beneficial effects of wine are nonexistent it just said there are other sources to get the same benefits.

[ April 21, 2005, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: yabba ]

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
This was you was it not?

Thank you for quoting what I actually said which had no definite relationships and not one mention of the phrase brain damage.

Increased sulca size and infarction rates in moderate alcohol consumers does not equate to brain damage. They may be indications of brain enhancements although that is highly unlikely. There appears to be some increased damage to the brain for moderate drinkers but there was no statistical analysis on whether the differences are statistically significant.

The researchers state in their article that they do not know the clinical effects of the changes in brain morphology that they observed.

Observing their data for occassional or low alcohol consumers, nothing at all can be stated because there is so little difference from those who never drink.

 

[yabba]

*didn't meant to post again*

 

[mioque]

When it comes to alcohol, mandatory abstinence is a Moslim thing not a Christian thing.

 

[av1611jim]

Let's see.
Infarction = dead brain tissue.
Former and moderate drinkers had more infarctions than never drinkers.

You make your own conclusions.

Yabba, I suppose that means the article said NOTHING about brain damage in moderate drinkers, huh? So, by your own reasoning dead brain tissue is not damage, huh?

Good thing dead people are not damaged.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by LarryN:
24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,"

Is God giving his approval for them to use the tithe for whatsoever their soul lusteth after? What if they wanted some women to go along with that strong drink? The verses throw me.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by mioque:
When it comes to alcohol, mandatory abstinence is a Moslim thing not a Christian thing.

Who said anything about mandatory abstinence?
Could you point me to that please?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[av1611jim]

williemakeit;
Evidently there are some here who would agree that the verse means anything, up to and including women, drugs, or whatever. After all, whatsoever means whatsoever right?

Obviously, that is not the intent of the passage. Some would try to use it as such against the tee-totalers, but not quite so far as they would be forced to go with it if their argument had any substance to it.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[LarryN]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
williemakeit;
Evidently there are some here who would agree that the verse means anything, up to and including women, drugs, or whatever. After all, whatsoever means whatsoever right?

Obviously, that is not the intent of the passage. Some would try to use it as such against the tee-totalers, but not quite so far as they would be forced to go with it if their argument had any substance to it.

In HIS service;
Jim

Context, Jim, context.

I made no comment on the verses at all.

I simply provided a requested example of a Biblical reference in which "strong drink" is not condemned. If you have a problem with the verses, your problem is with God's Word, and not with me; since I made no comment on the verses in any way, shape, or form.

Oh, and BTW, the verses are from the KJV.

 

[williemakeit]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
williemakeit;
Evidently there are some here who would agree that the verse means anything, up to and including women, drugs, or whatever. After all, whatsoever means whatsoever right?

Obviously, that is not the intent of the passage. Some would try to use it as such against the tee-totalers, but not quite so far as they would be forced to go with it if their argument had any substance to it.

In HIS service;
Jim

I apologize for the rabbit trail, but the verses have always intrigued me. First, God is approving the tithe not to come into the storehouse (or is he?), and second, I have never been able to find any place in the OT where he actually designated this 'special place' to use the tithe as they please.

 

[Deacon]

From the American Heart Association
ALCOHOL, WINE AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Dated: March 6, 2005

Most Cardiologists I know would recommend limiting your drinking to one glass of red wine per day.
If you are not a drinker there are no strong reasons to start.

Rob

 

[av1611jim]

Larry;
I apologize if it appeared to you that I was implicating you in my post. It was not intended. It was meant as a general indictment upon they who would use this to justify their use of alcohol.

Rather than justify it, I suppose they ought to just say they like its effect and leave it at that.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
...Scriptural proof that meat is approved of by God Himself.

And there is scriptural proof that wine is "approved by God himself"... Proverbs 31:6-7; I Timothy 5:23. Or do you disobey the Word of God and not give wine to those 'of heavy hearts' and strong drink to those who are perishing?

Do you care to show how it is beneficial to one's health? Current studies have shown it is not, as once it was believed to be....
As Gold Dragon has pointed out, there is a definite relationship to brain damage and alcohol.

And cutting out all kinds of meat is "beneficial to one's health" in relation to consuming meats. If your argument is what is more beneficial, the argument against meats is as valid as that against alcohol. God's Word approves of both, but that does not mean both or either are beneficial to health... which is always a relative question anyway, as in the I Timothy passage.

 

[mioque]

av1611jim
You want me to quote the 18th amendment of your own countries constitution at you? Baptists had a lot to do with putting it there.

Yes there is no good reason (healthwise) to daily consume alcohol when you live in a place that has enough clean water. Just like there is no good reason (healthwise) to daily consume meat after reaching adulthood.

 

[av1611jim]

mioque;
But who has ever beat their wife under the influence of a Big Mac?
And who has ever kiiled someone under the influence of KFC?
And who has ever...

Yes. Quote the 18th amendment verbatim please.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[James_Newman]

Even if there were health benefits to drinking alcohol, it still wouldn't make it right. Suppose there are health benefits to using stem cells from aborted fetuses to grow new livers for rich men who drank theirs into oblivion. Would that make it ok?

 

[yabba]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
Even if there were health benefits to drinking alcohol, it still wouldn't make it right. Suppose there are health benefits to using stem cells from aborted fetuses to grow new livers for rich men who drank theirs into oblivion. Would that make it ok?

Your comparing drinking alcohol in moderation(which is not condemned anywhere in the Bible) to murder of a child(which is condemned over and over again in the Bible)!!! You guys really are rediculous.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
Even if there were health benefits to drinking alcohol, it still wouldn't make it right. Suppose there are health benefits to using stem cells from aborted fetuses to grow new livers for rich men who drank theirs into oblivion. Would that make it ok?

I don't believe anyone here has used any health benefits of alcohol to justify its biblical use.

 

[mioque]

Article [XVIII].

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Proposal and Ratification

The eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-fifth Congress, on the 18th of December, 1917, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 29th of January, 1919, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Mississippi, January 8, 1918; Virginia, January 11, 1918; Kentucky, January 14, 1918; North Dakota, January 25, 1918; South Carolina, January 29, 1918; Maryland, February 13, 1918; Montana, February 19, 1918; Texas, March 4, 1918; Delaware, March 18, 1918; South Dakota, March 20, 1918; Massachusetts, April 2, 1918; Arizona, May 24, 1918; Georgia, June 26, 1918; Louisiana, August 3, 1918; Florida, December 3, 1918; Michigan, January 2, 1919; Ohio, January 7, 1919; Oklahoma, January 7, 1919; Idaho, January 8, 1919; Maine, January 8, 1919; West Virginia, January 9, 1919; California, January 13, 1919; Tennessee, January 13, 1919; Washington, January 13, 1919; Arkansas, January 14, 1919; Kansas, January 14, 1919; Alabama, January 15, 1919; Colorado, January 15, 1919; Iowa, January 15, 1919; New Hampshire, January 15, 1919; Oregon, January 15, 1919; Nebraska, January 16, 1919; North Carolina, January 16, 1919; Utah, January 16, 1919; Missouri, January 16, 1919; Wyoming, January 16, 1919.

Ratification was completed on January 16, 1919. See Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 376 (1921).

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Minnesota on January 17, 1919; Wisconsin, January 17, 1919; New Mexico, January 20, 1919; Nevada, January 21, 1919; New York, January 29, 1919; Vermont, January 29, 1919; Pennsylvania, February 25, 1919; Connecticut, May 6, 1919; and New Jersey, March 9, 1922.

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Rhode Island.

 

[williemakeit]

Are there any record of any Baptists that specifically denounced the comsumption of alcohol (not drunkedness) prior to prohibition? I have always heard that even Baptists used wine in the observation of the Lord's Supper prior to prohibition, and that prohibitionists were the driving force behind the current attitudes of abstinence.