Wrong. I have no problems with alcohol.
And you can quit at any time, I presume.
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!
Wrong. I have no problems with alcohol.
Read it.If he is speaking against drunkenness and alcohol abuse than I agree with him.
Didn't say you did.I do not visit bars.
Good for the Reformers and the Pilgrims. I'm not sure who on Baptist Board really cares about that besides you. So again why is it so important to you to tell us all that you are drinking a Mikes?(I doubt you are being paid to do so) What are you looking for?
And you can quit at any time, I presume.
Apprenlty you are one that fits into a small group that does care about how people in the past ate and drank. I was a history major and even I find that topic dull, not to mention obvious, as it has only been more recently that drink options have expanded to the hundreds of choices we have today.I like his study. I'm studying in the health care field, and I got a question wrong on a test in regards to this topic. I chose "no alcohol" as the best option, and they marked me wrong It's not unhealthy to have one beer a day. There's actually healthy benefits.
"moderate alcohol intake does not reduce LDL [bad] cholesterol, but it does increase HDL [good] cholesterol" (Adams, Holland Jr., Bostwick & King, Pharmacology for Nurses, Canadian Edition, p. 275).
It helps in the field of heart attacks and cerebrovascular stuff (strokes). Do you drink coffee? Do you ever take tylenol? You're taking drugs then. Same thing as alcohol. That being said I do believe, like evangelist said, that drunkenness is wrong.
Which is why anyone getting on a Christain message board, and proclaiming for all the world to see that they are drinking is a problem. There are too many unknowns for that kind of bold statment, and it very likely is a stumbling block with those who should not drink.I also believe that wine isn't for everyone and a believer shouldn't flaunt his wine drinking in front of others (as per Rom. 14:19-23).
And that is what I have been getting at. Why put a stumbling block out there. Why risk sinning against Christ as Paul puts it in 1 Cor 8:12Rom 14 NETPaul is not saying that one ought to abstain from wine, otherwise no believer could eat meat. He IS saying that one ought not to make a brother stumble by his eating and drinking.
19So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. 21It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. 23But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.
But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eatingc in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged,d if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12Thus, sinning against your brotherse and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.Why would I want too?
I like his study. I'm studying in the health care field, and I got a question wrong on a test in regards to this topic. I chose "no alcohol" as the best option, and they marked me wrong It's not unhealthy to have one beer a day. There's actually healthy benefits.
"moderate alcohol intake does not reduce LDL [bad] cholesterol, but it does increase HDL [good] cholesterol" (Adams, Holland Jr., Bostwick & King, Pharmacology for Nurses, Canadian Edition, p. 275).
It helps in the field of heart attacks and cerebrovascular stuff (strokes). Do you drink coffee? Do you ever take tylenol? You're taking drugs then. Same thing as alcohol. That being said I do believe, like evangelist said, that drunkenness is wrong.
I also believe that wine isn't for everyone and a believer shouldn't flaunt his wine drinking in front of others (as per Rom. 14:19-23).
Rom 14 NETPaul is not saying that one ought to abstain from wine, otherwise no believer could eat meat. He IS saying that one ought not to make a brother stumble by his eating and drinking.
19So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. 21It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. 23But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.To inspire others to break the teetotalist lies and deceptions.
Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
Romans 14:3
Why do you need to know who. I just looked and there are currently 53 guest looking at BB. You don't know anything about those 53 people. You also don't know who in the future might be looking at these post in the future. One only has to look at the stats to know its a mathematical certainty that someone is going to be on this site that has a problem with Alcoholism given that 1 in 13 Americans struggles with Alcoholism.The real question is who on this board have I made stumble over this issue?
Apprenlty you are one that fits into a small group that does care about how people in the past ate and drank. I was a history major and even I find that topic dull, not to mention obvious, as it has only been more recently that drink options have expanded to the hundreds of choices we have today.
That is why I keep asking evangelist why he is telling everyone about his drinking habits. What is he hoping to gain from that, and why is he hoping for it. Those are question he needs to answer because they will give insight into what the issue really is.
You can't control what they do, but their actions are not an excuse for your sin.I guess it works both ways. Teetotalers judge me and I judge them. We should not be like this.
Why do I assume what? that you found what the puritans drank interesting? because you said you liked this topic. That there are more drink choices? because there are. Soft Drinks for example date back to the late 1700s making them new compared to what the puritans (early 1600s) had as options.Nope. Why did you assume that? I went to bible school and we covered this topic.
what does any of this have to do with my posting. I've made it clear that I don't care if people drink or don't drink, I just don't want people to impose their legalistic standards (goes both ways) on others, nor do I think people should put a huge stumbling block out there for all the world to see."wine in Homer's day was twenty parts water and one part wine (Odyssey 9.208-9). Pliny referred to wine as eight parts water and one part wine (National History 14.6.54). According to Aristophanes, it was stronger: three parts water and two parts wine. Other classical Greek writers spoke of other mixtures: Euenos - three parts water, one part wine; Hesiod - three to one, water to wine; Alexis - four to one; Diocles and Anacreon - two to one; and Ion - three to one. The average was about three or four parts of water to one part of wine" (Normal Geisler, A Christian Perspective on Wine Drinking, Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March 1982).
However, I did some more study so as to remain unbiased, and I found out, from either Danker & Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG for short) or Kittel and Friedrich's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT for short), that alcoholic drinks are the same ratio today. What really is the issue is when abuse happens, ie, when drunkenness happens. Revmitchell says getting buzzed is drunk. I suppose it's up for debate: what grounds does he have for that, can it be supported, etc.
By looking at what the Bible says about alcohol.How do you propose we go about doing a bible study about alcohol?
Why do I assume what? that you found what the puritans drank interesting?
because you said you liked this topic. That there are more drink choices? because there are. Soft Drinks for example date back to the late 1700s making them new compared to what the puritans (early 1600s) had as options.
By looking at what the Bible says about alcohol.
The Puritans came from the post that mention Pilgrims as I have always had a bad habit of using those terms interchangeably.Huh? Where did the puritans come from?
Eating dinner as I type. Think I am gonna stop by the alcohol store and pick up a pack. John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Knox and yes even the Pilgrims loved their drinks. Was reading today about the Pilgrims love for beer and wine. Can you believe it that when they had thanksgiving they drank wine?
Why not? All the Reformers believed that wine comes from God, but drunkenness from the devil. When the Pilgrims had thanksgiving for the first time they were open about their love for wine and brought plenty of it to the feast.
No I said you are one of the few people that ARE concerned with how people in the past ate and drank. I assume that is a small subset, as even I as a history major find that a dull topic, and saying that the reformers or the pilgrims drank is like saying water is wet.You assumed that I was not concerned with how people in the past ate and drank, I responded with classical sources.
See above quotes where he is using the pilgrims (I misspoke because of my bad habit by using the term puritan) as justification for flaunting his liberty around.But not even evangelist is talking about puritans, at least not in the OP. Did I miss something?
I have no idea where you would even get such an idea from me saying that the way to study the Bible is to study the Bible (Who knew that was such a revolutionary concept) Your straw man doesn't make sense to me either but you are the one who came up with that straw man so I can't help you there.Soo no preacher can ever preach on the topic of alcohol because some might stumble? No bible study can ever be conducted publicly because someone might read the bible and find out that it's ok to drink if your conscience isn't defiled? Doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
Huh? Where did the puritans come from?....not even evangelist is talking about puritans, at least not in the OP. Did I miss something?
the colonials
Also from the OP:
No I said you are one of the few people that ARE concerned with how people in the past ate and drank.
Yea I guess you did say that. Sorry bout that
I think I was confused as to how you came to the conclusion that I was concerned with how people in the past ate and drank, and maybe that's how I thought you were saying that.