Drinking Alcohol Moderately

A while back weren't you trying to claim the same thing about yayin?

From a kosher certification website:

 

If you believe that alcohol is always bad, then I'm sure it is sad. However, I think it was a very positive step in my Christian life.

Where did you get the idea that I don't? I buy the two-pack of 64 oz. bottles at CostCo almost every time I go in there.

The same health benefits as red wine, except for the health benefits of alcohol. Alcohol is good for the body in moderation.

Well I know of many Christians who were glad to have an occasionally alcoholic beverage and don't get drunk. What's your point?

Then you shouldn't. Just because I occasionally have a bit of wine doesn't mean you're obligated to do ANYTHING.

I think I may have accidentally sipped a little of my paternal grandfather's beer when I was about 3 or 4 years old.

Since my "testimony" is a testimony of Christ living and active in my life and not an anti-alcohol screed, it doesn't ruin my testimony at all.

Then you are a person weak in faith (a weaker conscience). Why do you let yourself get offended?

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." - Colossians 2:16

 

Hate to burst your bubble, but you are wrong.

Alcohol is toxic to the body. It destroys organs. It is toxkc. That is why it is called an inTOXICant.

Alcohol is not beneficial to the body... not in the least.

 

Oh, by the way, we get the English word cider from shekar.

Cider—one word, whether unfermented or fermented.

Imagine that.

 

Two fallacies at work here:
1. The first is know as the genetic fallacy (sometimes called the root fallacy). This is the fallacy is where one tries to define the meaning of a word by pointing to its original meaning or the meaning of its roots. Its fallacious because the root of a word is not necessarily related to, much less identical to, its current meaning. I can give numerous examples if you are interested (besides the obvious one like - butterfly, an insect that has nothing to do with butter nor is a fly), but for now I will just point out one of the most significant theological uses of this fallacy:

"In John 3:16 we read that God gave "His only begotten Son." Although there are two words in English, the phrase "only begotten" is actually just one Greek word - monogenes. It comes from the word mono meaning single, or alone, and from the word genao which means "I bear or beget." The Jehovah Witnesses will try to capitalize on this to prove that Jesus is not God. If he was begotten, if he was born at some point in time, then he is not eternal, and therefore not God. But a better understanding of that term is the unique Son. He is one of a kind. This is clear from Heb 17:11 where Isaac is referred to as Abraham's only begotten son, when in fact Isaac was Abraham's second son."

2. The second iis a fallacy of division- it argues that since a lot of alcohol is toxic to the body, then a little must be toxic as well. It is true that some things are bad for the body regardless of the amount. However, many things are good for the body in small amounts even though they may be deadly in large amounts. Salt is a good example of this good for the body (necessary even) in moderate amounts but very bad in large amounts. Even water can be deadly if enough is drank. So to argue that since alcohol can be bad (in large amounts) it must be bad altogether is fallacious. It might be, but one cannot conclude that from this sort of reasoning.

So is alcohol bad in any amount? Well I know of many studies which indicate it is, at the worst, fine in moderate amounts, and even some which some alcoholic beverages to be beneficial if taken in moderation. Of course, those who disagree are welcome to show a study which indicates that alcohol is bad regardless of the amount taken. If they can do that, then they can at least call into question the claim of the pro-alcohol people.

However, the above sort of claim is simply fallacious.

 

This is called the genetic fallacy in reverse (also called a semantic anachronism). Just as you cannot determine the accurate meaning of a current word based on its origin, neither can you determine the meaning of an old world based on its modern meaning.

If you want to know the correct meaning shekar as found in the OT, go look in a Hebrew lexicon. For some words that are translated "wine" there are several possible meanings. However, for the word shekar you will find that it always refers to an intoxicating drink. If you don't agree, go find all the Hebrew lexicons you can and look it up.

 

Here is a fun example of the genetic fallacy (in word use often called the etymology fallacy as well):

The word "knave" comes from the German word knabo, or the Old English word cnafa, both of which meant boy. Since knave now means "a tricky or deceitful fellow" we can conclude that German or Old English boys were all tricky or deceitful.

Furthermore, when one looks at the etymology of cider, one finds that even in English for the long majority of the words use, it referred exclusively to an alcoholic beverage. From what I can tell, only after the rise of the Temperence movement does it take on the additional meaning of "juice". So cider as juice is a complete anachronism when considering only the historical English meaning of that word.

 

The etymology of cider:

late 13c., from O.Fr. cidre, cire (12c., Mod.Fr. cidre), variant of cisdre, from L.L. sicera, Vulgate rendition of Heb. shekhar, word used for any strong drink (translated in O.E. as beor). Meaning gradually narrowed in English to mean exclusively "fermented drink made from apples," though this sense also was in Old French.

etymonline.com

Shekar was any strong drink, not necessarily alcoholic.

 

I generally have not had any alcoholic drinks. The exceptions have been when I have had red wine in communion in the late 60's-early 70's,and perhaps four other occasions in my life. I never have paid for red wine. When I am bumped-up from economy class to business class I am usually asked if I'd like some and I don't refuse the offer. I always have water to wash it down. I just had my latest experience Saturday night.I was informed that the alcohol content was 8%. That's not enough to make me tipsy. I have read many scintific reports over the years that have established the fact that red wine is good for our health. I may even purchase some in the near future.

Many famous saints of the past imbibed moderately. I think *some* Fundamentalists have gone to extremes in denouncing the use of any alcohol for Christians.

 

"Strong drink" is a term which means "intoxicating liquor" (Merriam-Webster). Go open any dictionary and confirm that. The only difference you will find from this definition is that some might restrict it to mean "distilled (vs. fermented) liquor". Go ahead, look it up.

You are using a variation of the root fallacy. Even though "strong drink" is not one word, it is a term which has a precise meaning. You are taking the two words separately look at their possible meanings apart from the term "strong drink" and then creating an altogether new meaning. So something like this: Coffee is a drink (true).
Sometimes a cup of coffee is called "strong" as in "whew, that's one strong cup of coffee" (true)
Therefore coffee is also a "strong drink", and therefore "strong drink" does not always refer to alcohol. (totally fallacious)

Reminds me of the lyrics from Music Man:
"People:
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for Pool" :)

If you aren't convinced with the fallacious nature of this reasoning, I can probably find several terms where reasoning similarly becomes obviously absurd. However, I am hoping you will just look it up in the dictionary to be convinced.

Also, the contrast that is being made in the article you cite is that originally cider referred to any alcoholic beverage but eventually came to mean only alcoholic beverage made from apples. You can also look that up in other sources dealing with the etymology of the word "cider" to confirm this.

 

Years ago in a class on Paul's writings, our class was discussing the issue of "the weaker brother" being "offended" by the liberty of other believers. Our professor, a Greek scholar, pointed out that the issue of a weaker brother being "offended" was not an issue of making him angry, upset or frustrated (like it is often interpreted today), but rather an issue of giving an opportunity for the weaker brother to stumble in his faith and morals because of his immaturity in Christ.

The way I understand it is that I won't serve meat offered to idols to a person who can't enjoy the food in faith, and I won't serve alcohol (or encourage anyone else to drink alcoholic beverages) to anyone who cannot enjoy it in moderation or receive it in faith.

Now if you being offended by Christians drinking in moderation in the sense that it is making you angry because you don't approve of it, then I'm sorry, you're a control freak and you need to mind your own issues instead of judging others.

However, if you are "offended" in the sense that you may be tempted to drink immoderately, you need to let your fellow Christians know of your weakness so they will not put you in that position again.

 

This is probably the best post in this whole thread. Good advice!

 

Bravo :thumbs:

 

The times we live in are both sad and difficult for the Christian church. Our claimed Christian culture has developed a heart for freedom from Christ and His rule instead of surrender to His holiness. If there is not an exact command against what we seek even though there is may be indirect teachings against what we seek we become open to claim our rights. We seem to seek our rights at every turn rather then our responsibilities as well as our calling to be an example to this world. I think that the saying,"Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats" is a well deserved saying on this Christian culture.
As long as the bible does not give a direct command against something it becomes acceptable. Yes some may avoid it but they will still defend the so called rights of others to practice that very thing rather then seeking to point out the problems that such lifestyles can cause to them and to the Lord. What ever happened to seeking holiness at all cost.

I think we need to look very carefully at what drinking associates us with before we ever try and defend it whether in moderation or social events. Our post modern age and church has become a seeker of pleasure rather then a seeker of God. No longer is self denial popular and more then that it is frowned on by the very ones that teach and claim they have found the way. Just give me my rights!
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

 

I disagree. IMO, Christian are simply looking for freedom from the Pharisitical rules put upon us by those who believe they have the definition of "holy" and they alone. Those groups who want to define "holy" as a black and white issue, lost their influence when they began to teach rules instead of teaching scripture.

For an example outside of the alcohol debate: My parents refused to allow us kids to own a pack of playing cards. It was a "sin". No explanation given as to why, just follow my rules and God will love you, otherwise you are on the road to hell.

But the Bible told me to "try the spirits" (1 Jn 4:1) so when I went looking for scripture to support their view, I found none. The gambling association fell apart when I read that the apostles had cast lots to see who would take Judas' place among them. So did the "worldliness" theory. But not only did my parents preach such, but so did the churches they attended!

Unfortunately, it seems that many, many churches want to "go with the flow" of what other churches are teaching, instead of "going with scripture" to teach one how to be holy.

What is "holy"? Love thy God with all thy soul and love thy neighbor as thyself, for on these two rest the law and the prophets.

I'm sorry, I don't find it loving or encouraging to have a man stand on a street corner shouting "repent" and then in his second sentance accuse all passerbys of being hom*s*xual because they happen to attend the secular university on whose street corner he stands! That isn't holiness!

How much better would it be if he shouted "Good news, Christ has come to save you from your sins"?

I can see the difference, can you?

 

1. Scripture does not simply lack an exact command against alcohol, it commends it.

2. There are no indirect teaching against alcohol, only against its abuse. Teachings against the abuse of something are never to be taken as indirect commands against its use. If that were true, then one would have to forbid things such as sex and food (at least beyond what was absolutely necessary).

Moderate and appropriate use of alcohol IS a proper Christian example to this world. The world abuses, some Christians also abuse, Scripture gives commands against abusing...
- Food. Yet instead of forbidding all but the most basic use, we instead hold up the example of eating in faith with joy and thankfulness to God.
- Sex. Yet instead of forbidding sex altogether, we hold up the example of sex within marriage and promote the joy and pleasure of sex within that context.
- Marriage. Yet instead of forbidding marriage we hold up the example of Godly marriage where the couple live and love in faith together in Christ.
- Money. Yet instead of forbidding money we seek to set the example of holding lightly to our possessions, of looking to God to provide our needs, and of cheerful giving.

Yet when alcohol is dealt with, we point to the worlds abuse, how some Christian abuse it as well, and how Scripture commands not to abuse it, and instead of applying the same approach that, just as with everything else, we should set a proper example by appropriate use, we instead somehow come to the conclusion that it should be forbidden altogether?!! Such a position makes no sense and its totally inconsistent with normal Christian practice. Its like how some Victorians taught that sex was a necessary evil and it was wrong to take pleasure in it (esp. for a woman). Or how the ascetics monks taught that food was a necessary evil and that it was best if a believer ate only what was necessary to survive. We believe such teachings to be contrary to Scripture - that instead sex and food are good gifts which should be done in faith, moderation and the proper context. Yet we deny such when it comes to alcohol...even though Scripture also holds alcohol as a good gift like sex and food.

For many that is true. BUT that does not lead to an argument against alcohol even more than it leads to an argument against any other good gift from God. It merely leads to an argument against their abuse, against the Christian seeking pleasure in those things over living by faith.

A lifestyle of appropriate use of alcohol cannot cause any more problems than a lifestyle of appropriate use of sex, food, marriage or money. Such lifestyles are *examples* of seeking holiness, not contrary to it.

Fallacious reasoning. And inconsistent. Just try and apply that logic to earning money and see if you can stomach where it leads. Drinking alcohol in moderation no more associates us with evil than earning a living, being married, having sex in marriage, or eating in moderation associates us with evil. Sure, there will always be some people who see something good as somehow wrong. The communist associates money with evil, the Victorian prude associates sex with evil, the marxist-feminist associates marriage with evil, and the ascetic associates food with evil. Yet we ignore such extreme views and instead continue to partake of these things in faith believing that by doing so we set a *good* example regardless of some extremists associating such things with evil.

Likewise, the teetotaler associates alcohol with evil. His views are just as extreme as the others and the response should be the same.

I agree this is a problem. The proper response however is not forbidding things, but teaching their proper use in the proper context. Just as it would be absurd to look at such seekers of pleasure in the church and preach absolute self-denial of marriage, sex, money or food, so too with alcohol. That some may *seek* pleasure does not mean that we should therefore deny pleasure. Such a conclusion is both absurd and unscriptural. Instead of denying pleasure to counter act the seekers of pleasure. We instead teach people to seek God...which can properly include partaking in various pleasure in faith, with thankfulness and in the proper context.

Good stuff. However, just as the proper use of money, sex, marriage, and food do not fit the above, neither does the proper use of alcohol.