Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Evangelicals Lost Their Way on Alcohol
Patheos ^ | January 12, 2011 | Thomas S. Kidd

Posted on 01/12/2011 8:57:47 AM PST by Alex Murphy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last
To: Responsibility2nd; Lazamataz
Feh ...

Even Laz wouldn't ...

51 posted on 01/12/2011 10:18:53 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970; Alex Murphy
In effect, they are trying to convert me to Christianity.

No, they're not. From all appearances, you're already a Christian. They're trying to convert you to their man-made un-Biblical cult.

52 posted on 01/12/2011 10:21:13 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

One of the things that has made the modern Church virtually irrelevant today in society is that they have promoted all sorts of things which are not sins into the category of being sinful.

Smoking is a great example. Smoking is not a sin but the modern-day Christian has made it a requirement of all Christians to not smoke. Sure, it’s bad for you but so is eating fast food and I still see people doing that.

I know lots of people who think that drinking is a sin and they brag about how “alcohol has never passed my lips”. I tell them that God is not impressed with that and they get very offended. Besides, if they have ever had nyquil or most types of cough syrup they have had some alcohol.

Christians need to get back to the basics instead of trying to shape society to meet all of their personal wishes — which is what the liberals do.


53 posted on 01/12/2011 10:22:42 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Unknown Republican

You are right. The Bible prohibits excess or drunkenness. Christ’s first miracle was turning water into wine, and the scripture does allow that God created the fruit of the vine to make wine which maketh merry the heart of man. It’s not logical the way it has been taken to the extreme. In fact, I’ve often thought that a lot of men would have been better served to be able to sit down in their own homes, at their own tables and have a gracious glass of wine with their meals rather than having to go out to a beer joint and drink out of sight of their wives.


54 posted on 01/12/2011 10:23:54 AM PST by Twinkie (Awake and strengthen that which remains . . . . . . . . Revelation 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

“People CHANGE when they are drunk. People will freely do things when they are drunk - that they would never seriosly consider doing when they are sober. “

Quite true but irrelevant to the discussion.

This is about whether it is a sin to drink, not whether it’s bad for society.


55 posted on 01/12/2011 10:25:58 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl

You forgot this one:

David in Psalm 104 God brought forth “wine that maketh glad the heart of man”

And several other verses from the Old and New Testament that go against your moral view which is not Biblical, but cultural.


56 posted on 01/12/2011 10:32:39 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

“They are legends in their own mind when it comes to spiritual purity.”

The thing I love about people like that is they have so much joy in their lives. /sarcasm


57 posted on 01/12/2011 10:37:32 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl; Tennessee Nana

Well thank you for all the posted verses. The problem is all of those verses within their context have to do with over indulging, excess, or drunkenness. All of which yes the Bible clearly condemns. We should learn from that and insure that we don’t commit the same sin. For some of us that means abstaining at all times either because of a low tolerance level towards alcohol or simply lack of self control. For others who don’t have any of these issues, it would not be sin to have a glass of wine with dinner.

And with that said, you cannot get around that Jesus turned the water into wine at Cana. That’s just fact and that’s just Scripture. And you can’t suggest that well, it must have been grape juice or cheap wine or some such nonsense which clearly contradict what the Scripture in fact says.

And you can’t then suggest that well, water wasn’t safe to drink back then, blah blah, wine was safer etc. etc. Why? Because Jesus is God. He is the Creator (Colossians 1:16). Safety and health wouldn’t have been an obstacle for Him. He could have created the most wonderful, purist, cleanest, tastiest water you will have ever drank if he had wanted to. He didn’t. Instead he created the BEST WINE.

Think on that.


58 posted on 01/12/2011 10:38:39 AM PST by conservativegramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Growing up in West Texas, there was a saying:

“They have a Babtist bar”.

It meant that they kept the liquor under the sink.


59 posted on 01/12/2011 10:43:00 AM PST by alarm rider (The left will always tell you who they fear the most. What are they telling you now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
If a person has inner demons that gives him or her the propensity to abuse his children, he will do it whether he is sober or drunk.

Anger, physical abuse of others as well as drunkenness are sins of the flesh. No demons are required - see Galatians 5:19-21

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
60 posted on 01/12/2011 10:43:04 AM PST by slumber1 (Texas Rangers - 2010 American League Champions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Why should you always invite two baptists on a fishing trip?

Because if you only invite one, he’ll drink all your beer.


61 posted on 01/12/2011 10:45:32 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Amen.

See Gentry, God Gave Wine: What the Bible Says About Alcohol


62 posted on 01/12/2011 10:48:11 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webstersII; Alex Murphy
Smoking is a great example. Smoking is not a sin but the modern-day Christian has made it a requirement of all Christians to not smoke. Sure, it’s bad for you but so is eating fast food and I still see people doing that.

Like all things, it’s bad when done to excess. There’s no evidence that moderate tobacco use is any more harmful than any other thing done in moderation.

63 posted on 01/12/2011 10:53:28 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
This is about whether it is a sin to drink, not whether it’s bad for society.

Well, Jesus drank wine, his disciples drank wine, pretty much every Prophet in the Bible drank wine. So, one would think that the answer to that question is a resounding 'No'.

However, we are also told not to drink to the point of drunkeness. I think, personally, that the reasons that wine was popular back in biblical times had more to do with technolgy at that point in time, than anything else. Refrigeration, anti-biotics, insect repellant, food handling, sanitation, ect - have removed the NEED for wine (alcohol).

So, in today's world - wine exists for one reason and one reason only - for the taste of wine and the alcohol it contains. Some people are able to drink a glass or 2 at a meal, and stop without developing an addiction. Other people cannot drink a drop - without losing control. So, I can see where a religous group could opt to tell it's members "You don't NEED this, this can harm both you and your family - so stay away from it".

The sin, is in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, the serous NEED for alcohol has been removed by modern technology.

64 posted on 01/12/2011 11:04:05 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: marron

Well said, marron! I’m a Southern Baptist and a non-drinker, but I don’t worry about what other Christians do as long as they truly strive to live a Christ-like life.

Baptist doctrine is against the consumption of alcohol. Although scripture doesn’t *require* abstinance from alcohol, there’s nothing wrong with that choice. Christian denominations make collective decisions on how their members should act all the time, although it seems only rarely do they interpret scripture to be *less* permissive than what can be justified...

For example, meatless Fridays for Catholics. That’s not required in the scriptures, but is done as a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice. (someone correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t do it, but I think that’s great. Maybe this Baptist will start! :)


65 posted on 01/12/2011 11:08:05 AM PST by Fletcher J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
There’s no evidence that moderate tobacco use is any more harmful than any other thing done in moderation.

Far easier said, than done....

... A moderate use of tobacco and heroin is almost always impossible. Only 10% of the people who start to use tobacco become moderate users. The same goes for heroin. In the case of alcohol, 80-90% of the users keep it moderate. Only between 10% and 20% of the people who start to use alcohol will become heavy drinkers. There are no such numbers known about cocaine.

Source

66 posted on 01/12/2011 11:09:02 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

The Pastor’s wife asked us if we could bring in some of our own ornaments to help decorate the church for Christmas. Among other things, I brought in a lovely picture of Mary and the baby Jesus. The Pastor’s wife took one look at it and declared it was “too Catholic looking” and that the Pastor would not allow it in the church. The Pastor is also of the belief that the “wine” Jesus made from water was grape juice because wine is fermented , rotten, and Jesus would never make anything unpure.


67 posted on 01/12/2011 11:11:22 AM PST by heylady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Far easier said, than done....

May be true, but I would like to see the study and definition of "moderate" wrt tobacco.

And what percentage of the population is considered overweight/obese?

68 posted on 01/12/2011 12:06:31 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Fletcher J
Christian denominations make collective decisions on how their members should act all the time, although it seems only rarely do they interpret scripture to be *less* permissive than what can be justified...

Like the Pharisees. :-)

69 posted on 01/12/2011 12:10:09 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

True enough, but the Pharisees are an extreme example. Extreme & inflexible self-denial isn’t much of a religious problem in today’s world; I think we have quite a way to go before that would be a concern... heh

Bottom line is that I presume someone isn’t just trying to bend the scriptures to their liking when their interpretation is contrary to their own worldly desires.

For instance, one man says he feels led to give 25% gross pay to the church, and another says he’s studied the scriptures and clearly God only requires a 10% tithe - of net pay. The second man may be absolutely correct, but most folks would automatically presume the first is acting in good faith.


70 posted on 01/12/2011 1:12:59 PM PST by Fletcher J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“There’s no evidence that moderate tobacco use is any more harmful than any other thing done in moderation. “

I agree. The issue is when so-called conservatives try to create a culture that is based on their view of how people should behave.

Most of them are just trying to keep certain influences away from their children, so they use the Bible to beat people over the head. But what they need to do is learn how to teach their children right from wrong and train them up to have good character. Outlawing stuff won’t work; if they just want to outlaw stuff they would probably enjoy living in a Muslim country.


71 posted on 01/12/2011 1:15:18 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“Like the Pharisees.”

White-washed tombs full of dead men’s bones. . . . .


72 posted on 01/12/2011 1:19:51 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Heh. That’s funny. I’ve been on both sides of that river.


73 posted on 01/12/2011 1:51:51 PM PST by BenKenobi (Rush speaks! I hear, I obey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Fletcher J; webstersII
For instance, one man says he feels led to give 25% gross pay to the church, and another says he’s studied the scriptures and clearly God only requires a 10% tithe - of net pay. The second man may be absolutely correct, but most folks would automatically presume the first is acting in good faith.

As long as the first man is speaking for himself and not trying to impose his beliefs on others, that’s fine.

That’s usually not the case when we get into the matters of drink, smoke, dancing, and other social “vices,” (Dare I mention rock music?) Folks are quick to exclude (or even include) based on abstaining from such activities. Many churches and denominations even pride themselves on such strictures. Usually the same churches and denominations that go whole hog (pardon the pun) when the church picnic rolls around.

74 posted on 01/12/2011 2:15:33 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“As long as the first man is speaking for himself and not trying to impose his beliefs on others, that’s fine. “

Yep, and that’s usually the issue, some person is abusing their authority by telling people how to live. Or you have someone bragging about their righteousness because they ‘don’t drink, dance, smoke, cuss, chew, or hang out with those who do’.

“Dare I mention rock music?”

Oh, man, the Evil Rock Music. I had forgotten about that one. ‘Bring your rock music CDs to the bonfire in back of the church so they can be destroyed.’


75 posted on 01/12/2011 2:43:11 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

“As long as the first man is speaking for himself and not trying to impose his beliefs on others, that’s fine. “

Yep, and that’s usually the issue, some person is abusing their authority by telling people how to live. Or you have someone bragging about their righteousness because they ‘don’t drink, dance, smoke, cuss, chew, or hang out with those who do’.

“Dare I mention rock music?”

Oh, man, the Evil Rock Music. I had forgotten about that one. ‘Bring your rock music CDs to the bonfire in back of the church so they can be destroyed.’


76 posted on 01/12/2011 2:43:29 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; All

This is really the same argument that the first century church had about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Here’s what Paul had to say about it:

“So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.” (1st Corinthians 8:4-13)

It’s pretty obvious from this passage that eating meat sacrificed to idols, or by extension, drinking alcohol, isn’t inherently sinful. The only sin is when we cause a brother to stumble — and I don’t think, from the context, that Paul meant ‘brother’ in the vague, generic sense of the word — I think he meant a specific person. So, if I offer a drink to my alcoholic friend, then yes, it’s a sin. If I have a hot buttered rum in my own home on a cold winter night, or a glass of wine with dinner, it’s not an issue at all.


77 posted on 01/12/2011 3:08:41 PM PST by Terabitten ("Don't retreat. RELOAD!!" -Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Moderate use of tobacco? I smoke between 5 and 10 cigarettes per day. Less if I’m really busy, or absorbed in a book.

I recently quit for 8 months, with no difficulty. I missed the flavor, so I started again, but have never felt the need to smoke more than I do.


78 posted on 01/12/2011 3:23:44 PM PST by Judith Anne (Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Claiming that Jesus turned water into only grape juice denies part of the miracle. Certainly, transforming matter is miraculous; but to me, changing water to wine signifies Jesus’ mastery over time itself, because natural fermentation takes time.


79 posted on 01/12/2011 5:59:43 PM PST by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I enjoy an occasional cigar, or pipe, and I also enjoy rolling my own cigarettes. I don’t smoke much in the winter because I do it mostly outdoors. In the summer 2-3 cigarettes a day is average. But I can go for weeks without.


80 posted on 01/12/2011 6:56:47 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: scbison; Alex Murphy; Vigilanteman; elcid1970
Ah, but some evangelicals believe that Jesus made grape juice! Here's a clip
Da ya go displaying your ignorance over the biblical use of the word “wine.” Justify your drunkeness via Jesus and the wedding! No, Jesus never drank strong drink and He didn’t create 150 gallons of rotten juice to throw a drunken party. Jesus Christ never created anything tainted, and fermented juice is tainted. What He created was good and pure — not purtrid and corrupt! It’s down right blasphemous to suggest such a thing.
Of course, this forgets that until the modern processing industry grape juice naturally became wine or vinegar. In fact even now the grape fruit juice is artificially prevented from becoming wine/vinegar with the presence of chemicals. So wine is actually more "natural" than grape juice and not "tainted" with chemicals
81 posted on 01/13/2011 4:35:59 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Nice to hear you say this

I do not believe that God's grace had been lifted from the Catholic Church, or that the Catholic Church wasn't part of the "true" Church in some way, prior to the Reformation (or beyond)."

I do not believe that God's grace had been lifted from the Catholic Church, or that the Catholic Church wasn't part of the "true" Church in some way, prior to the Reformation (or beyond)."
82 posted on 01/13/2011 4:38:24 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; webstersII

Well, we’re pretty much in agreement, really. I just think we’re talking past each other based on a denomination’s decisions vs. an individual’s actions.

Bottom line is that an “evangelical” denomination has as much right to collectively decide to abstain from drink as others have the right to choose to partake. If someone on either side argues their personal beliefs to the point of offending a fellow believer, then your issue is with him/her, not the denomination as a whole.

BTW, the article in this post is taking *evangelicals* to task for *not drinking*. Then the majority of posts are people tweaking evangelicals for not minding our own dang business... ;)

Thanks, guys, for the interesting discussion. I love a post that makes me think!


83 posted on 01/13/2011 7:21:37 AM PST by Fletcher J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
So, in today's world - wine exists for one reason and one reason only - for the taste of wine and the alcohol it contains. Some people are able to drink a glass or 2 at a meal, and stop without developing an addiction. Other people cannot drink a drop - without losing control.

People who "cannot drink a drop - without losing control" are that way for a reason, and from everything I've seen, it's generally not genetic. It has a lot to do with attitudes towareds alcohol consumption in the societies and families where they learned to consume alcohol. Did they have a model of alcohol as a recreational drug (either from their parents or peers), or did they have a healthier model of what you do (and don't do) with alcohol?

Apparently, Southern Baptists, lacking any positive model that allows for moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, have a pretty high abuse rate (see my previous post in this thread.)

There are entire societies that have very, very low rates of alcoholism. Jewish people, for example, almost universally consume alcohol, yet the rate of alcohol problems among Jews is very low.

84 posted on 01/13/2011 8:07:30 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Fletcher J
Bottom line is that an “evangelical” denomination has as much right to collectively decide to abstain from drink as others have the right to choose to partake.

Actually, I disagree. If a decision of a denomination violates an individual’s liberty of conscience before God, then that decision is wrong. I do not believe a denomination is free to go beyond the Word of God when making binding decisions that affect individuals.

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 20:2)

85 posted on 01/13/2011 8:15:56 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Fletcher J; webstersII
If someone on either side argues their personal beliefs to the point of offending a fellow believer, then your issue is with him/her, not the denomination as a whole.

If you make that “a weaker brethren,” then I would agree. I don’t think we need to abstain for possibly offending any old believer, since the problem may be entirely with them.

86 posted on 01/13/2011 8:24:57 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

That’s strange, I thought you were just on this thread lecturing us about the evils of imposing your personal beliefs on others... But now you say evangelicals Do Not have the right to follow God as we feel prompted. Who do you suggest we ignorant Baptists place in charge of our spiritual decisions, so that we quit goofing up and doing stuff you disagree with?

Your argument doesn’t change my opinion that each denomination has free-will to make their own collective decisions. (I had never thought that to be a controversial statement before) If a denomination’s basic tenets “violates an individual’s liberty of conscience before God”, then that person is clearly in the wrong denomination. No mainstream Christian denomination prevents their members from leaving for another church which better reflects their deeply-held beliefs.


87 posted on 01/13/2011 8:58:18 AM PST by Fletcher J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Jewish people, for example, almost universally consume alcohol, yet the rate of alcohol problems among Jews is very low.

Interesting point of view; perhaps the SHAME that follows a drunkard in a Jewish community is enough of an incentive to keep people with a predisposition to alcoholism, from giving in to their needs.

As contrasted to Indian Reservations, where alcoholism is rampant and largely left under a constant state of 'wildly out of control'.

I'm not Baptist - but my view is simply "Alcohol served a vital purpose, at one point in time. Today, it's sole purpose is intoxication (at some level) - something that many people can control and manage - and something that others choose to let govern their lives.

Why would one invite disaster that can destroy their lives, their marriage, their job, career and livelihood?" Seems like a bargain that may gain a temporary hour or two of bliss - and potentially lead to a lifetime of dispair.

You are free to make your choice; please respect me and allow me the same courtesy.

88 posted on 01/13/2011 9:32:56 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
I don’t smoke much in the winter because I do it mostly outdoors. In the summer 2-3 cigarettes a day is average. But I can go for weeks without.

You do realize, I assume - that you are a statistical 'flyer'. For whatever reason, you have a pretty unique immunity to Nicotine addiction. Now many people have this ability.

For example, I have a natural immunity to Poison Ivy and Poison Oak. Very few people can do what I do - without some severe consequences.

So, I count myself lucky in this regard - I know what I can tolerate with impunity, is very dangerous to others. So, while you can enjoy a cigar or cigarette - count yourself as blessed - as very few people can do what you do.

89 posted on 01/13/2011 9:46:23 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

90 posted on 01/13/2011 9:50:04 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bodleian_Girl

One man pees his pants

Another insists, as a result, we must all start wearing diapers.

You say that the introduction of alcohol into the family is never a positive thing?

Tell that to the families of Italy, who for generations have been vitners. It was the monks of Europe that sent vines over to California that saved the wine industry in Europe from botrytis and other vine diseases.

It’s been an efficient way of transporting and exchanging value for centuries.

Anything can be abused, and we know that somethings must be avoided. Alcohol is something that must be used with judgement. It is not in itself evil.


91 posted on 01/13/2011 10:05:36 AM PST by RinaseaofDs (Does beheading qualify as 'breaking my back', in the Jeffersonian sense of the expression?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fletcher J
That’s strange, I thought you were just on this thread lecturing us about the evils of imposing your personal beliefs on others... But now you say evangelicals Do Not have the right to follow God as we feel prompted. Who do you suggest we ignorant Baptists place in charge of our spiritual decisions, so that we quit goofing up and doing stuff you disagree with?

Actually, I’m not saying that for individual Christians. They are free to do anything not forbidden in the Word of God as their conscience allows (Rom. 14:23).

On the other hand, denominations (pastors, teachers, elders, etc) are not permitted for bind the consciences of individuals in matters of adiaphora wrt the Word of God. Smoking and drinking in moderation, for example, are adiaphora. Church leaders, regardless of their intent, may not bind an individual on these matters.

92 posted on 01/13/2011 10:45:48 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
You do realize, I assume - that you are a statistical 'flyer'.

I guess, but it must run in my family and the folks I hang with because none of us are “addicted” as far as I can tell. I think moderation tends to overcome the “addiction” issue.

93 posted on 01/13/2011 10:51:16 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Then the logical end to your argument is that we must all be our own denomination, refusing to compromise with any other Christian on any matter of indifference.

People are capable of weighing the benefits of being a Christian loner against that of joining a group with which they agree 95% of the time. And if the other 5% is troubling, then that person can either compromise in order not to be a stumbling block to a brother (entirely Biblical), or else seek a new church which agrees with them on that matter of indifference.


94 posted on 01/13/2011 1:20:10 PM PST by Fletcher J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Fletcher J
Then the logical end to your argument is that we must all be our own denomination, refusing to compromise with any other Christian on any matter of indifference.

It doesn't appear you are getting the gist of my comment. It is generally unnecessary for a denomination to place across the board requirements on its members that cannot be supported from the Word of God. Denominations restricting the liberty of its people is not much different than governments restricting its members. There's something about leaders on a power trip that's common to all organizations.

Besides, name an occasion where compromise on a matter of indifference is necessary and needs to be defined at a denominational level?

95 posted on 01/13/2011 4:29:28 PM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Fletcher J

“If a decision of a denomination violates an individual’s liberty of conscience before God, then that decision is wrong”

Well stated.

People are always trying to add more requirements for us to live up to — all for “our own good”.


96 posted on 01/13/2011 6:19:24 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

“There are entire societies that have very, very low rates of alcoholism” —> in my opinion, that is also dependent on country. I think if you compare in the 19th century Jewish communities across Europe, the rates of drunkeness may have been higher in the east rather than the west.


97 posted on 01/14/2011 1:57:34 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Hodar; Jeff Winston
"As contrasted to Indian Reservations, where alcoholism is rampant and largely left under a constant state of 'wildly out of control'."

My two cents -- if you notice, alcoholism is high among societies that were conquered by other societies that were higher along in "societal development" (by societal development I don't mean a sense of morality but rather a sense of rules, regulations how to live together in large communities especially towns and cities without killing each other).

For example, alcoholism is rampant among native Americans, Aborigines and South African non-Zulu/Xhosa blacks, while it is lower among Mayas, Maoris, Zulus and the same or lesser rate than Europeans/North Americans in India, South-East Asia, China, etc.

I read it somewhere that the reason for this is a sense of emasculation by the males in these societies -- when a more developed society came along, the males found themselves thrown out of their roles as providers and protectors and life seemed worthless.

You find the same among Eastern Europeans before and after communism. I see alcoholism in Poland for instance (and I'm not Polish, just living here) as pretty restricted to those who lived under communism. Wodka was the way to keep the people drunk and pliable and stop them from rioting. And life under communism was devoid of much joy, so drink seemed an escape.
98 posted on 01/14/2011 2:04:59 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Hodar; Jeff Winston
"wine exists for one reason and one reason only - for the taste of wine and the alcohol it containS"

I dispute the One reason -- you enumerated two, the taste and the alcohol. The same for beer

Spirits on the other hand I think in my humble opinion are just for the alcohol.
99 posted on 01/14/2011 2:09:48 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Hodar; Jeff Winston
Spirits on the other hand I think in my humble opinion are just for the alcohol.

Perhaps you’re not drinking the right spirits. Whether one chooses wine, beer, or spirits, it’s all a matter of taste, aesthetically speaking.

100 posted on 01/14/2011 6:21:30 AM PST by topcat54 ("Dispensationalism -- like crack for the eschatologically naive.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson