Moderate Drinking?

[Splayd]

I can say the same about the "social drinkers" here. They have arbitrarily come up with their own definition of what being drunk is and, believe it or not, their definition allows for them to have a few drinks before they consider one to be drunk. A convienant definition to say the least. They cannot define an exact point when one is drunk, but one is *never* made drunk by the first few drinks, those first few drinks *never* contributes to ones drunkeness.

There's so much wrong with thtis I'm not sure where to start.

Firstly - the definition provided by the "social drinkers" (many of whom don't drink btw) is far from arbitary. It's the definition used in common English usage and can be found in pretty much any dictionary. Further I'm not sure that anyone here has suggested that someone can't get drunk from one drink let alone imply that the first few drinks don't contribute to one's drunkeness. Of course they do. So???

As you say "my definition", it will keep one from ever sinning because of drunkeness in any degree, how can that be unbiblical? Their definition allows for various degrees of drunkeness which is sinful. I cannot find a single passage where Christ or an Apostle approved of social drinking, it's nowhere to be found.

Of course you can't find it. You've refused to acknowledge that wine is wine. It doesn't take a genius to recognise that Jesus turned water into wine and that the disciples drank wine during Passover. Without careful tuition in the anti-alcohol arguments, one would otherwise be in agreement with the plain reading of scripture, the Jewish history and the history of the Christian church which all agree that wine is wine is wine.

As to the question about how your persepctive is unbiblical the obvious answer is the recurring theme of judging others which appears in scripture. If you are calling something a sin which isn't actually a sin and then judging others by it... hmmm.

So the tho't here is this; if we can find an "acceptable" way to get an ounce or less of alcohol in us, then we can stretch that out to make getting a few drinks in us acceptable?

Uh no. The thought is - if drinking ANY alcohol makes one "drunk" then it necessarily follows that one is drunk when they take medicines with alcohol in them... or mouthwash for that matter or.... whatever. Common sense recognises that that can't be right.

 

[AJB4]

Like I've said the last few posts, the mindset that alcohol in any amount is a sin is a Johnny Come Lately doctrine. That particular interpretation finds its roots in the 19th Century Temperance movement. A quick look at history as far back as it will take you will show you that the Christian church used real wine in the Lord's Supper. I so far have managed to find something as far back as the time of St. Justin Martyr (100-165AD) and it's plain that they used real wine in the Lord's Supper then.

I tend to trust the ancient view rather than the Johnny Come Lately 19th Century Temperance Movement view.

 

[Iosias]

Where in Scripture is the consumption of alcohol forbidden?

Proverbs 31:6 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."

 

[Splayd]

Where in Scripture is the consumption of alcohol forbidden?

It isn't of course, but apparently it doesn't have to be. Some here work from the other side of the coin. If it isn't "authorised" it's wrong. Mind you "authorisation" for things you disagree with has to be impossibly explicit while for things you agree with it can be obscurely implicit.

Peace

 

[jmacvols]

There's so much wrong with thtis I'm not sure where to start.

Firstly - the definition provided by the "social drinkers" (many of whom don't drink btw) is far from arbitary. It's the definition used in common English usage and can be found in pretty much any dictionary. Further I'm not sure that anyone here has suggested that someone can't get drunk from one drink let alone imply that the first few drinks don't contribute to one's drunkeness. Of course they do. So???

It's not 'what' is drunk, it's 'when' does one become drunk, at what specific point does one commit the sin of drunkeness. You say above that the first drinks of course contribute to a persons drunkeness. So with the first drinks, one has some degree of drunkeness, no?

Of course you can't find it. You've refused to acknowledge that wine is wine. It doesn't take a genius to recognise that Jesus turned water into wine and that the disciples drank wine during Passover. Without careful tuition in the anti-alcohol arguments, one would otherwise be in agreement with the plain reading of scripture, the Jewish history and the history of the Christian church which all agree that wine is wine is wine.

I have acknowledged that the underlying word for the English word "wine" does not always mean the intoxicating type of wine. To imply that the word 'wine' in the bible always means the intoxicating type is simply incorrect. I have shown that a cluster and freshly pressed grapes (grape juice) is called "wine". When Jesus made "wine", one has to *assume* it was the intoxicating type. During Passover, anything to do with yeast was forbidden, and Jesus kept the OT law perfectly so He would not have "wine" nor bread made from yeast. Again, the word "wine" is never used about the Lord's Supper, it uses the phrase "fruit of the vine".

As to the question about how your persepctive is unbiblical the obvious answer is the recurring theme of judging others which appears in scripture. If you are calling something a sin which isn't actually a sin and then judging others by it... hmmm.

Drunkeness is a sin.
At what point does one become drunk?
Some say one has to have a few drinks before they are drunk. You have admitted that the first drinks contribute to a persons drunkeness. So clarify for me at what specific point does one commit the sin of drunkeness?

Uh no. The thought is - if drinking ANY alcohol makes one "drunk" then it necessarily follows that one is drunk when they take medicines with alcohol in them... or mouthwash for that matter or.... whatever. Common sense recognises that that can't be right.

Yes. Every "social drinking' thread I have seen has those who scratch hard to find the smallest thing to justify their social drinking, to find a inch to stretch into a mile. And no, I do not think taking medications with alcohol makes one commit the sin of drunkeness, but at the same time that does not permit one to "social drink". The instructions Paul gave to Timothy were for medicinal purposes, Paul was not approving "social drinking". I believe a table spoon of medication does not promote drunkeness, where as a can of beer for social drinking does. I believe it has to to with intent and purpose. One does not go out drinking with medicinal intent/purpose, nor are social drinks made for medicinal purpose/intent.

 

[crawfish]

The KJV says "not given to wine", v3.

Are the other translations invalid?

 

[Splayd]

You say above that the first drinks of course contribute to a persons drunkeness. So with the first drinks, one has some degree of drunkeness, no?

No. Not necessarily. Do the first few bites contribute towards gluttony? Yes. Does that make someone a few bite gluttonous? No.

I have acknowledged that the underlying word for the English word "wine" does not always mean the intoxicating type of wine. To imply that the word 'wine' in the bible always means the intoxicating type is simply incorrect. I have shown that a cluster and freshly pressed grapes (grape juice) is called "wine". When Jesus made "wine", one has to *assume* it was the intoxicating type.

I've highlighted a couple of words. I agree that the biblical usage of the word "wine" needn't always apply to alcohol. I find no reason to believe that the inverse is true either. Rather it's apparent that there's no distinction made between alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine. The scriptures treat it all the same way. Consider that those who took the Nazarite vow abstained from alcohol also abstained from any and all grape juice to the point that they wouldn't even pick grapes. They made no distinction between them.

During Passover, anything to do with yeast was forbidden, and Jesus kept the OT law perfectly so He would not have "wine" nor bread made from yeast. Again, the word "wine" is never used about the Lord's Supper, it uses the phrase "fruit of the vine".

This simply isn't true. i used to peddle this line of thinking myself, but further investigation puts the whole thing to rest. To this day the debate continues in Judaism whether Passover wine should be diluted with water or not.

This goes back to the midrash where it's stated that drinking water on it's own is not good, nor is drinking wine on it's own as it gets one drunk too quickly, but drinking water and wine together is great. It's apparent that the wine they drank then was clearly alcoholic, though they preffered to drink a lighter version of it. During religious ceremonies though the purists often insisted on wine which wasn't watered down, so far from providing non-alcoholic wine, the wine they drank in religious ceremonies was actually stronger than what they drank usually.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I believe it has to to with intent and purpose.

I think you're right about this. The difference between moderate drinking and drunkenness is not so much how much a person drinks (although that is definitely a factor) but what the purpose of drinking is. Namely, whether it is for flavor and refreshment, or to go out of one's mind. Is the alcoholic beverage being used as a beverage or as a drug? In itself it is neither. It's the way that it's used that makes it that way.

 

[Splayd]

And no, I do not think taking medications with alcohol makes one commit the sin of drunkeness,

*snip*
You're not being consistent in your application then. If one glass of alcohol makes someone one glass drunk, then it follows that one teaspoon of alcoholic medicine makes someone one teaspoon drunk. Surely.

 

[jmacvols]

*snip*
You're not being consistent in your application then. If one glass of alcohol makes someone one glass drunk, then it follows that one teaspoon of alcoholic medicine makes someone one teaspoon drunk. Surely.

Consistency is in the purpose and intent. If you want to, we can debate whether or not taking medication with alcohol makes one drunk or not. Even if you win that debate, *IF* taking medication with alcohol does make one drunk, this still does not condone social drinking, it would just show taking medicine with alcohol would be wrong. You'd still be at a dead end proving the acceptablilty of social drinking.

 

[dawnsday]

Where in Scripture is the consumption of alcohol forbidden?

Proverbs 31:6 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."

ACK!!! I have been looking for that one for weeks! I KNEW the bible said something like that!

 

[jmacvols]

No. Not necessarily. Do the first few bites contribute towards gluttony? Yes. Does that make someone a few bite gluttonous? No.

The first few bites do not make one a glutton nor drunk, but the first few drinks makes one some degree drunk. Eating and drinking are not analogous.

I've highlighted a couple of words. I agree that the biblical usage of the word "wine" needn't always apply to alcohol. I find no reason to believe that the inverse is true either. Rather it's apparent that there's no distinction made between alcoholic and non-alcoholic wine. The scriptures treat it all the same way. Consider that those who took the Nazarite vow abstained from alcohol also abstained from any and all grape juice to the point that they wouldn't even pick grapes. They made no distinction between them.

Then you agree that "wine" as used iin the bible does not always means the intoxicating kind, it can and does mean the nonintoxicating or grape juice. Then you have no absolute proof, other than you bias towards social drinking, that the "wine" Jesus made was intoxicating? Actaully the evidence suggests otherwise. Jesus was not break Hab 2:15. If Jesus did make intoxicating wine, does that approve of making of intoxicating drinks, working in a package store selling drinks or being a bar tender? Or are these things wrong?

This simply isn't true. i used to peddle this line of thinking myself, but further investigation puts the whole thing to rest. To this day the debate continues in Judaism whether Passover wine should be diluted with water or not.

Jesus was "perfect" at keeping the OT law, and if yeast was forbidden, then Jesus did not use it. But then again the word "wine' is never used regarding the Lord's Supper, it uses the phrase 'fruit of the vine', which means that born of the vine.

This goes back to the midrash where it's stated that drinking water on it's own is not good, nor is drinking wine on it's own as it gets one drunk too quickly, but drinking water and wine together is great. It's apparent that the wine they drank then was clearly alcoholic, though they preffered to drink a lighter version of it. During religious ceremonies though the purists often insisted on wine which wasn't watered down, so far from providing non-alcoholic wine, the wine they drank in religious ceremonies was actually stronger than what they drank usually.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The first few bites do not make one a glutton nor drunk, but the first few drinks makes one some degree drunk. Eating and drinking are not analogous.

"Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall gome to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags." Proverbs 23:20-21

Jesus was not break Hab 2:15.

"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also that thou mayest look upon their nakedness!"
Habakkuk 2:15

Nobody suggested that Jesus created wine for that purpose!

If Jesus did make intoxicating wine, does that approve of making of intoxicating drinks, working in a package store selling drinks or being a bar tender? Or are these things wrong?

Certainly. Why would those things be wrong?

Jesus was "perfect" at keeping the OT law, and if yeast was forbidden, then Jesus did not use it. But then again the word "wine' is never used regarding the Lord's Supper, it uses the phrase 'fruit of the vine', which means that born of the vine.

Yeast grows naturally on the skin of the grape and is therefore present in freshly pressed grape juice. The only way to get the yeast out of the juice is by fermentation, which kills the yeast and causes it to settle to the bottom. Just a little knowledge of wine chemistry would tell you that it is unfermented grape juice that contains yeast and wine that is free of yeast.
It's a moot point though, because it was not yeast but leavening that was forbidden, at the yeast that grows on grapes is not a leavening agent.

 

[ludovica]

Would I be correct to say that God created all the ingredients necessary to make alcohol, yet it was man that discovered and mixed those ingredients to make alcohol? So alcohol is a creation of man and abused by man?

No. Fermentation is a natural process. I have seen many nature documentaries where the wild animals gather around trees, waiting for the fruit to begin to rot which is when they gorge themselves on the fermented fruit and become drunk. I am thinking particularly of monkeys, elephants and birds. Ergo it is a God given natural substance, and is "abused" by man and beast alike

 

[EastChief]

No. Fermentation is a natural process. I have seen many nature documentaries where the wild animals gather around trees, waiting for the fruit to begin to rot which is when they gorge themselves on the fermented fruit and become drunk. I am thinking particularly of monkeys, elephants and birds. Ergo it is a God given natural substance, and is "abused" by man and beast alike

I was wondering if anyone else was going to bring this up. I have heard about this also. It made me wonder how if wine in biblical times was so weak, as many have said, how can animals get drunk from eating fermented fruit?

 

[sidekick]

I was wondering if anyone else was going to bring this up. I have heard about this also. It made me wonder how if wine in biblical times was so weak, as many have said, how can animals get drunk from eating fermented fruit?

I would say it has do do with their overall body mass. If a dog, for example needs a dose of medicine, it would require a smaller dose than we would. Elephants on the other hand would require a whole lot more So, for a bird to become intoxicated, it would be a lot less intake of the fermented fruit than larger animals.

 

[Splayd]

The first few bites do not make one a glutton nor drunk, but the first few drinks makes one some degree drunk. Eating and drinking are not analogous.

The problem with your whole approach here is that you first decided on your own definitions and then force everything to fit them. Scripture, common usage and dictionaries all diasagree with you. SoldierOfThe King provided a wonderful passage that demonstrates that they are considered indeed analogous in scripture and pretty much any established dictionary will offer a contrary understanding of the word "drunk".

Then you agree that "wine" as used iin the bible does not always means the intoxicating kind, it can and does mean the nonintoxicating or grape juice.

No. I agree that all wine will at some stage be non-alcoholic grape juice, but there simply isn't a distinction between intoxicating wine and grape juice. They're the same thing at different stages of fermentation. Positive verses don't discuss wine pre-fermentation and negative verses don't discuss wine post-fermentation. They discuss wine period. To decide otherwise is to act extrabiblically and include your own inovation to the text.

Then you have no absolute proof, other than you bias towards social drinking, that the "wine" Jesus made was intoxicating? Actaully the evidence suggests otherwise.

What evidence? The only things approaching evidence in the text are that they had gone through the wine quicker than expected and that the wine He made was considered the best. Neither say anything in and of themselves, though if pressed to draw conclusions one might suggest that both imply the wine was alcoholic. Consider an ancient discussion (I'll find the exact quotes if required) where men were trying to determine why people don't seem to get drunk off new wine. Their conclusion: it's too sweet, so noone drinks enough to get drunk. Hardly sounds like the drink of choice in their day.

If your "evidence" was Hab 2:15 however, then that was well addressed by SoldierOfTheKing, as was everything else.

Peace

 

[Splayd]

Actually I'd agree that wine in biblical times was generally weaker than wine today, particularly when they watered it down. We've learnt lots of ways to artificially enhance the alcoholic content. Nonetheless it was still alcoholic then and it really doesn't serve the purposes of team prohibition to acknowledge that it could have had any alcohol at all.

Peace

 

[AJB4]

Splayd, you're my home boy LOL .

Scripture, common usage and dictionaries all diasagree with you.

Not to mention there, the history of the Christian church.

 

[EastChief]

Actually I'd agree that wine in biblical times was generally weaker than wine today, particularly when they watered it down. We've learnt lots of ways to artificially enhance the alcoholic content. Nonetheless it was still alcoholic then and it really doesn't serve the purposes of team prohibition to acknowledge that it could have had any alcohol at all.

Peace

I agree 100% that it was weaker. I don't always get my thoughts into words properly to express my intent. What surprised me, and the reason I brought it up was that fermented fruit has enough alcohol in it to get animals drunk. In the article I read it was a cow - a rather large animal - and it was stumbling around. That's pretty drunk from some fruit! And I imagine that fermented fruit is not as strong as naturally fermented wine, although I have no proof of this.