Featured Will You TOSS One Back over the Holidays?

What I am implying to is if a person saved or un-saved continues to drink there is a line they will cross where the alcohol will control them. Prov 6:27-28 Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned ? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned ? Same thing with cigarettes, I know of a pastors wife right now fighting for her life because of her addiction to nicotine. I have watched her for several years dart out the back door after preaching service to light up a cigarette, now she has lung cancer.

 

I drank to extreme excess in an effort at self-medication of PTSD. I got help with the drinking, and with the PTSD. I didn't drink for over 25 years. Now I have a glass of wine once or twice a week, and couple beers during a football game. I don't have to have them. In fact, I sometimes don't drink them, even when they would go well with the meal or the occasion, particularly if there is someone present whom I know to have a problem with alcohol. I will not insult the weaker brother. But I do enjoy them when I decide to have them.

They don't control me. So tell me how they do?

 

I don't understand you saying, They don't control me yet you had to get help with your drinking problem.

 

A few years down the road after the government legalizes pot will people be on here trying to convince others there is nothing wrong in smoking in moderation. Some people will not turn loose of the world.

 

That's not true. So you're saying Joseph, all his brothers, Timothy, others in the Bible all became addicted to alcohol? You know Jesus drank and others who hold your position called Him for doing so a winebibbber? You broad brush everything, correct?

The passage is about adultery, not moderate use of wine which God gave to men to merry their hearts. Use and handle the Word correctly.

That's too bad but that is apples and oranges. None of your illustrations are even on the same subject, nor is the Scripture you yank out of context. The bottom line is you've called EVERYONE who consumes in moderation drunkards.

 

It's a proven fact alcohol in olden times is not the same as it is today. Same way with tobacco. You say, use and handle the word correctly. I say, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 11 Tim 3:16. Bottom line, Everyone that continues to drink will cross the line one of these day's when life's troubles over take them and they will go to the bottle to drown their problems.

 

Please inform us how it is a "proven fact" that alcohol is different today than in ancient times.

 

OK. And they still used it, it still intoxicated or had the potential, and it was still given by God to merry the hearts of man. So did all those in Scripture become addicted who drank? You're aware Jesus consumed wine, correct?

OK. I see you're still arguing apples and oranges. Maybe you can't see the fallacy in that.

Actually Scripture says it. It says to rightly handle the Word. Frankly you haven't, you've used it out of context and that is called proof-texting.

No, actually Scripture says it. It is profitable, but is to be used in context instead of yanking it out of context as you do. You realize that, don't you, that you use the Word out of context, and that in doing so it actually does not support your ideology?

Yes, we're aware you believe all who consume alcohol are drunkards including those on BB who do. You have a pattern of going to the extreme and taking all things out of context.

 

Of the 12 drinkers, only 5 of you say you intend to drink in moderation. Just how drunk do the rest of you plan on getting?

 

Most everyone on here at one time has been accused of taking scripture out of context or twisting scripture or proof texting by others when the point they are making is disagreeable to them. Cal/Arm topics are a good illustration. Do what you want, believe what you want and drink what you want, have a good day.

 

It is not that it is not true so much, but drinking or not drinking, the black and white thingy that has nothing to do with Scripture, is a myth. The issue is, how does one come to the conclusion not to drink. If you are being a teetotaler because Deacon Jones and his gossip wife at the local Baptist church say it is wrong, then following their man made rule under your own power, you are wasting your time and fooling yourself.

If on the other hand, you are lead by the Holy Spirit in you not to drink because of say a weaker brother, a witness, or your own pattern of drinking, and through the power of Jesus Christ abstain, that is another matter.

There is nothing more destructive to the daily Christian walk than modern day people leading a life in the exact pattern of the Pharisees. There are only two reasons Christ got angry in the NT, one is making a buck off the Word of God, and secondly, the mindset and hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The anger between Christ and the Pharisees is an exact picture of the Christian vs the world.

 

That's because you refuse to understand. That was 25 years ago. I became a Christian. How can anything of a temporal nature control me if I am truly committed to Christ?

Now, how about answering my question, please?

 

Actually, this is the same lie temperance movement leaders attempted to foist on the public over 100 years ago. Properties of fermentation are determined by physics, which dictate set levels of alcohol to result from set number of days of fermentation. Those who made wine and beer then are held to the same physical properties of their concoctions as are brewers and fermentors today. They can only let the process go so long before it goes too far and ruins the product.

Therefore, wine today is the same as it was then, no stronger, no weaker. Those in Jesus' time -- as well as before, after, and even now -- "mixed" the wine with water, because the water in the Mideast to this day is unsafe to drink because of the tiny one-celled livestock that make their home there. Only in that sense was wine made "weaker" than today, but wine from the wineskin in the first century was 12% alcohol, or perhaps as high as 15%, same as today.

Perhaps that's your own experience, and for a limited time in my life, it was mine as well. But I gave my life to Christ, and I do not abuse alcohol, I do not use it for self-medication for PTSD, because my PTSD -- contrary to the concept of some very educated men and women in my own profession -- is gone. Some don't think that's possible either, but as my Christian (Messianic Jewish) psychiatrist at the Kansas City VA said and believed, "All things are possible with Christ."

You will note, from my previous post, I waited a very long time before I dared take a drink again, and I waited a long time before I had my next glass of wine. I feared perhaps it was not possible, as old AA'ers claim, that you can't drink again. I'm living proof that some can, which is why we as addictions counselors now make a distinction between "problem drinkers" as being those who have a temporary problem, and "alcoholics" who have a lifelong problem and should never drink again.

Argue this all you want. As a professional, I know the truth. And before you ask, no, I don't let my clients know I drink, though with some I do share my own bad experiences. I treat a lot of vets from Iraq and Afghanistan. To tell them I drink now would be counterproductive to their treatment. The last thing they need, as problem drinkers or alcoholics either one, is to cling to the concept they can drink again, because it is possible they may not be able to do so. That's not dishonest, either.

My experiences are as real as theirs. Perhaps, someday, if they so desire, they can perform the same "experiment" I did. Despite my problems, I actually do like the taste of beer and wine. There's nothing wrong with that, biblically or otherwise. It is the legalist in you that wants it to be wrong, but that simply is not true.

 

The abusers I am talking about don't drink wine. I drink wine at communion services. The people I am talking about drink moonshine whiskey 100% proof and can drink a gallon of beer all day without much effect. The temperance movement was about whiskey drinkers for the most part and their abuse of their families. Disconnected as far as answering your question, webdog still hasn't answered mine either. Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, shall I pour anything in my body to harm my liver ?, shall I smoke anything to harm my lungs ?, shall I be a glutton and ruin my digestive system ? Shall I unclothe my body in front of the world and cause them to lust if I was a beautiful woman ? Shall I use foul language because of my liberty and cause my own family not to have confidence in me ?

 

First of all, these liberties you are taking with history and with the subject we have heretofore discussed is an effort to reframe the discussion. I won't participate.

That has nothing to do with you answering mine, does it?

Alcohol in moderation doesn't do that. Here's what the medical experts say about alcohol. Where the text is bolded and italicized, that is my emphasis.

Alcohol: Balancing Risks and Benefits​

Note, nothing is said about moderation harming the liver, although I know you can find some websites out there that make that claim. Note who their sponsors and publishers are, however. They have an agenda.

Misdirection and a straw man. We aren't talking about smoking, are we? We are talking about alcohol, which is proven to have health benefits while smoking has no benefit to it at all.

Again, misdirection and a straw man. Not germane to the discussion.

Misdirection. Straw man. And imagining you as a "beautiful woman" is a bit of a stretch, sorry.

Misdirection. Straw man. Not to mention, foul language doesn't cause health problems, only spiritual, and prior to this post, your argument was relative to the physical harms and mental health issues you believe are inevitable with alcohol. My point all along has been that is the case for some, but not all, and in fact, a minority of people, at least in the U.S.

When you want to stay on topic -- and, incidentally, answer my question, which you still haven't done -- let me know.

 

Well guess what 'they're' not 'us' and you have implied that those here are drunkards if they drink alcohol. That and you use Scripture incorrectly (2 Cor. 4:2) to bolster your own personal ideologies that aren't based in Scripture.

Then, if that is not enough, you pour in a barrel of apple and orange illustrations that have nothing to do with the issue as if it facilitates your ideology further.

It doesn't.

In fact your illustrations above are getting out of control and are becoming absurd.

Rightly divide the Word, and you'll see that most of what you believe here are doctrines of men and legalism that aren't founded upon Scripture and are typically used to get the fundies fired up about something they don't do in the first place. You know, so they can feel like the pharisee comparing himself to the tax collector.

 

Once a preacher got up in the pulpit to preach to his congregation using the text, Be sure your sin will find you out, Numbers 32:23. As there were a mixed multitude that day consisting of backsliding Christians and souls that had never been saved there was quite a stir and anger was on their faces. After church the guilty got together to huddle and one came up with the answer. They all went before the preacher and declared he had taken his scripture out of context as a proof scripture and that this verse was only talking about the children of Israel and could not be used to preach to gentiles or people of today. The preacher ask how did they come to this conclusion, Well, said one, we have been reading what some have said on the BB board about taking scripture out of context and we believe it fits our case to the T. :laugh:

 

Seriously? You really thought you had something up above? If anyone concluded the above as in your illustration, neither they nor you get it. That's all you've proven.

You further show you don't grasp proper context or even proper application of the Word. You've used a passage in this thread on adultery and tried to fit it into the allowable moderate use of alcohol.

Are you aware that adultery and alcohol are altogether two differing topics?

If so, rightly handle the Word in the future and avoid practicing 2 Cor. 4:2.

SM, your illustrations are terrible through and through and completely miss the point. If a preacher preached 'be sure your sin will find you out' he has good ground to do so as the OT can be applied to NT believers. APPLIED.

You're aware that Paul made allusion to the OT being used for our examples, correct? And that he said all Scripture is profitable for instruction, correction &c correct? And, that in doing this we are to properly handle the Word? This doesn't allow for yanking verses out of context on specific subjects and twisting them into another subject as as you've done.

Your legalistic value system is based upon a faulty interpretation and application of Scripture and thus becomes only a philosophy and ideology on your part, and is not sound doctrine, it is merely the teachings of man.

 

What a stupid thing to say!

You don't know if he can control it or not.

When HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of people drink around the world and are not alcoholics it is idiotic to tell a guy that he will not control it.

I grew up in a family of drunks. And I also know dozens of people who drink regularly and are not even CLOSE to being alcoholics.

Alcohol is not heroine. It is not that potent that it GETS you.

If you binge drink all of the time and you are medicating a sin problem with alcohol- then you will probably become an alcoholic.

Otherwise, it is foolish to say that one will become an alcoholic.

Why don't you tell the guy, "Please don't drive. You will not control it- it will control you."

It's ridiculous, narrow-minded, fundamentalist nonsense!

 

preacher4truth, here is a young man obviously not of legal age to purchase alcohol. Obviously, he is not quite as versed as you are when it comes to the Word of God. Obviously, he relied upon and erred when it comes to the scripture he quoted. Specifically, that of referring to the sin of sexual misconduct applying it to the consumption of alcohol.

In your response it does appear that you're quite condescending and mocking his lack of knowledge. It would seem to me that any Preacher 4 Truth would rather assume a position of correcting a youth vice mocking him. No?

All any of us can do is lead a horse to water but..., So it is here. No need to be bullish about it and no, I'm not defending salzer mtn. I've just been there and done that.

Early in my Christian Life I was removed from driving a church bus for a nonsensical reason only to be replaced by a "better man". Turns out he sold Insurance and once he sold everyone in the church a policy, he quit and moved on. That was over 38 years ago and that insult against me still lingers.

As you know, the tongue is like a two-edged sword.