The Christian and Alcohol

just a little exerpt from: LINK

what's the intoxication limit in your state?



Drunk:
​

1.being in a temporary state in which one's physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink; intoxicated

 

I agree with your comments on the presentation. It was well reasoned, well delivered and I believe he makes some good points.

I've heard a pastor use the first drink analogy, comparing it to flying in an airplane. He said no one would fly if they said 1 out of every 17 tickets would be for a faulty seat that would drop the passenger out of the aircraft. The point he was making; 1 out of 17 people who take a drink will end up an alcoholic, but people (especially the young people he was addressing) don't see the danger, but only the perceived fun.

 

Aww, shucks. I'll say it, I know you all are waiting for it to be said. Pliny the Elder. Not who you thought would bring him up huh?:laugh:

 

wow...only 5 pages...this is a slow moving alchy thread...I'm genuinely surprised...

For what it's worth I hope those going after people who don't feel drinking is a problem are also going after gluttons, smokers, anyone who eats transfat, lazy people, gossips, legalists, and the overly wealthy among other things. The last thing I need is to be in an argument about occassional, social alcohol intake with a fat guy (which has happened to me before.)

...well hope you all have a good day

 

It's human nature.
It's always easier to beat up on the sins that we ourselves don't commit.

And how many times must one do 26MPH in a 25MPH zone to be a lawbreaker?

Psalm 130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?​

​

HankD

 

Only 1 if a man is overfeeding himself with it.

 

It helps to begin with the facts.

From Barnes' New Testament Notes:

The good wine. This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase "good wine." We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent—poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine — utilissimum vinum— was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine— saluberrimum vinum— was that which had not been adulterated by "the addition of anything to the must or juice." Pliny expressly says that a "good wine" was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country—always containing a considerable portion of alcohol —not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavour to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition. No man should adduce this instance in favour of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the" water-pots" of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour's example may be always pleaded JUST AS IT WAS; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was drawn out of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a supply when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer's furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/barnes/ntnotes.vii.ii.x.html

 

I already mentioned Pliny Aaron, you can't.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Sorry. I didn't read the whole thread carefully.

 

48 posts, mine being 49th, on a subject that some told Dr. Ketchum has been 'beaten to death' , one poster actually posting links to each thread ?
Wow.

 

Reaching for my Nyquil as I type. :saint:

 

Today in Bible class I told my congregation that the Bible doesn't forbid using wine and so on, but it forbids drunkenness.

 

What kind of response did you get?

 

Tim, I could only go with what I see in Scripture.

Did Paul forbid drinking wine in Rom 14:21, "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another believer to stumble" (NLTse)?

 

If you can't see the clear command for abstinence in Proverbs 23:31, 32...

I'll pray for you.

 

OK - I listened.

Nothing new here.

 

No he did not 'forbid' but he did always set himself as an example for others to follow, did he not?
And here we see his example with respect to that which he knows makes his brother to offend:

Brotherly love is not about getting what's mine (even in private), but giving up it all if need be that our brothers and sisters might excell in their knowledge, love, and relationship toward the body and Christ.

I always come back to two verses in scripture that are interesting parallelisms:

and..

I think christians need to come back to an understanding of NOT ONLY "it's not about me but it's about Christ" to also "and it's about my brethren as well".

 

Moderation

All things in moderation.

 

How many souls could have been saved by spending the same amount of time telling them about the Gospel as has been spent debating this ridiculous subject over the history of this board?

Why is it so hard to understand that the Holy Spirit guides us all in these matters, including this one? Accept His answer for your life on this matter, and spend the time doing something useful that is being spent convincing others you are right and they are wrong. God gave us all a brain.