Drinking question

[PETE_]

Apply to one what? Nowhere in the bible does it say women cannot wear pants. It says not to dress like one of the opposite sex, I don't see my grandmother in that pink pant suit she used to love as "dressing like a man". The flowers and the ruffle kind of gave it away that it wasn't a Man's suit...I guess the pink did too (men didn't wear pink back then).

Jewelry ahhh see that is a misapplication, Jewelry is fine, as long as it is not pagan in nature.

God gave us the Sabbath...so, bring that one up with Him.

legalism comes in many areas

 

[LadyGarnetRose]

legalism comes in many areas

Not sure what you're getting at...

 

[MrsJoy]

I am not denying that but you have not yet answered the question. Have you ever been to an all-you-can-eat restaurant or a church pot-luck where there were any fat people?

I am not saying that the standard you set doesn't exist, I am asking are you consistent in applying it in the manner that you expect in relation to alchohol?

it's not quite an exact comparison.
if they were in my HOME and i offered to much, that would be a closer comparison, rather than a cop-out.
if those who struggle with such things place themselves in a place of temptation, that is different than fellowshipping and caring more for others than ourselves.

not to mention that food does not have the same affect upon you as food -not that addictions cannot be formed, but they are not of the same severity.
they do not cause you to have car-accidents, loose reason and on and on.

waving this type of temptation under a nothers nose and claiming that this is our right under our freedom is both categorically wrong and selfish.

I believe that it would do all of us a lot more good to seek to serve one another, rather than find loop holes in which to declare our rights.

 

[PETE_]

it's not quite an exact comparison.
if they were in my HOME and i offered to much, that would be a closer comparison, rather than a cop-out.
if those who struggle with such things place themselves in a place of temptation, that is different than fellowshipping and caring more for others than ourselves.

not to mention that food does not have the same affect upon you as food -not that addictions cannot be formed, but they are not of the same severity.
they do not cause you to have car-accidents, loose reason and on and on.

waving this type of temptation under a nothers nose and claiming that this is our right under our freedom is both categorically wrong and selfish.

I believe that it would do all of us a lot more good to seek to serve one another, rather than find loop holes in which to declare our rights.

I dont he he is condoning inviting them to a beer bash at your home, but we are free to have a glass of wine while out to dinner without looking over our shoulder to see if we might offend someone. If I knew someone opposed drinking I would definitely not invite them to a function where alcohol is served or drink when out with them, thatt would be wrong.

 

[BereanTodd]

it's not quite an exact comparison.
if they were in my HOME and i offered to much, that would be a closer comparison, rather than a cop-out.
if those who struggle with such things place themselves in a place of temptation, that is different than fellowshipping and caring more for others than ourselves.

You are wrong. "If they were in your HOME and you offered too much" would be comparable to inviting an alchoholic/someone struggling with alchohol to your home and pouring him a cold beer.

Drinking in front of the person struggling with it is the same thing as pilling up your plate at the buffet or the local church pot luck. You are flaunting your freedom in an area where the other brother (in this case the obese) clearly has a sin issue. Stop excusing your lack of consistency.

not to mention that food does not have the same affect upon you as food -not that addictions cannot be formed, but they are not of the same severity.
they do not cause you to have car-accidents, loose reason and on and on.

No, it causes heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases. It also is much more, or at least every bit as, transferable to their children.

waving this type of temptation under a nothers nose and claiming that this is our right under our freedom is both categorically wrong and selfish.

I believe that it would do all of us a lot more good to seek to serve one another, rather than find loop holes in which to declare our rights.

The problem is that you find loopholes everywhere except with alchohol (assuming such loopholes exist). So again, why do you dammage the spirit of the obese brother?

 

[MrsJoy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsJoy
What a self-centered point of view:
notice, our freedom is NOT FOR US but that we might LIVE AS SERVANTS!
1 Peter 2:16
Live as free men... live as servants of God
Galatians 5:13
You, my brothers, were called to be free. ... serve one another in love.

1 Corinthians 10:24
Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

Philippians 2:4
Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Philippians 2:3
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make.

When one screams "YOU ARE SINNER!" because one decides to have a glass of wine in their own home, it is conceit, it is legalism, and it is their own pride puffed up as those who prayed in full few as loud as could be with widened tefflin, tzitzi that drag the ground, and over exaggerated davening to show how righteous they are, and the rest who do not so are not.

The sin of wine, is when one gets drunk.

To say that it is a sin for anybody to consume any liquor, well that's the height of legalism.

I agree with not giving in to legalism.
I do not believe in that either.

but that was not the point being made.
you were trying to say that our "rights" under our "freedom" give us the "liberty" to reject God's Word when it comes to a weaker brother.
My point was that our freedom is not there in order for us to do what we want!!
we are never to put "our rights" before the true needs and struggles of our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsJoy
the fact remains that scripture is there, and there for a purpose.
God did not give us our freedom in order that we could flaunt it in others faces.
nowhere are we told to declare our freedom over the needs of our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

It's not a freedom, it's a rule, to drink, add some wine for your stomachs sake, drink well of the tithe, turning water to wine after all the wine was gone and clearly the revlers were already revling at the wedding.

While it is a sin to make a brother/sister stumble. I'm not advocating drinking infront of a alcoholic.

What I am trying to say is, to hollar and scream that everybody must stop drinking because some folks find it offensive to their delicate sensiblities and we are going to burn for it...

Well that leads us to Todd's post...and if you've ever gone with somebody who is overweight and has problems not knowing when to stop eating to a buffet.

I do not believe in letting others views and convitions dictate how we live.
I do believe in putting others ahead of ourselves.


and that is what screaming about our rights ends in a lot of the time.

 

[MrsJoy]

I dont he he is condoning inviting them to a beer bash at your home, but we are free to have a glass of wine while out to dinner without looking over our shoulder to see if we might offend someone. If I knew someone opposed drinking I would definitely not invite them to a function where alcohol is served or drink when out with them, thatt would be wrong.

i agree, we are not to be paranoid about someone seeing us.
but that is not the picture that was being painted.
i did not see that picture at all-i saw "YOU can't tell ME what I can't do! I am free! regardless of how you feel!"

 

[MrsJoy]

You are wrong. "If they were in your HOME and you offered too much" would be comparable to inviting an alchoholic/someone struggling with alchohol to your home and pouring him a cold beer.

Drinking in front of the person struggling with it is the same thing as pilling up your plate at the buffet or the local church pot luck. You are flaunting your freedom in an area where the other brother (in this case the obese) clearly has a sin issue. Stop excusing your lack of consistency.

the difference being they can CHOOSE to put themselves in such a place. choosing to be around temptation as opposed to having a brother decide to stick it under your nose are two very different things.

No, it causes heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases. It also is much more, or at least every bit as, transferable to their children.

i didn't say it was harmless.
i said it was not as harmful .
it is a cop-out used by many.

I think we forget the only RIGHT we have is Hell.

The problem is that you find loopholes everywhere except with alchohol (assuming such loopholes exist). So again, why do you dammage the spirit of the obese brother?

LOL
I do not look for loopholes.
I find it hystarical that you would accuse me of something that you cannot even begin to back up-even from things that I have posted on this forum.

the only loop hole i found was in your faulty comparison.

 

[BereanTodd]

Mrs. Joy, let's try to get practical here in order to maybe come to more of an understanding. I am not sure that we need be so far apart.

You are right there are times we must give up our freedom for need of the weaker brother.

For instance, Example 1, I have a married couple who I minister to, and they are recovered alcoholics. When they come over, any beer or wine disapears, and anything I cook will not have any alcohol in it. I don't drink any time they are around at any event or gathering.

Example number 2, I attend a Southern Baptist Convention church, and many in the SBC are very anti-drinking. I am leading and teaching a 2 week tour of Israel this summer, and though in my previous time spent in Israel I greatly enjoyed tasting some local wines, I will not be drinking anything on this trip so as not to offend anyone.

So yes, we should be concious of our audience, TO AN EXTENT, and care for the soul of the weaker brother.

Now let's turn it around a little bit. Example 3 My wife and I go out for a date night, and we go to a nice dinner. We will be ordering drinks, she will probably have a frozen margarita, and I will likely have a Pina Colada, or a nice glass of wine, or even a nice imported ale, depending on the meal selection.

Example 4, I keep wine, imported beer, rum and Grand Mariner in my home for both cooking and drinking purposes. Now I never have more than two drinks, I never get drunk, and in fact in the last two weeks I have probably had all of two drinks period.

So, are we to care for our brother? Yes. Does that mean that we must totally abstain? Well, if that is the conviction of your heart, then yes, because the Bible tells us it's a sin to violate your conscience.

However, one had best stop before telling us that we all must completely abstain or that drinking is ungodly ... especially seeing as it is something that Jesus so regularly took part in, and which is spoken of favorably throughout the Bible.

 

[MrsJoy]

Mrs. Joy, let's try to get practical here in order to maybe come to more of an understanding. I am not sure that we need be so far apart.

You are right there are times we must give up our freedom for need of the weaker brother.

For instance, Example 1, I have a married couple who I minister to, and they are recovered alcoholics. When they come over, any beer or wine disapears, and anything I cook will not have any alcohol in it. I don't drink any time they are around at any event or gathering.

Example number 2, I attend a Southern Baptist Convention church, and many in the SBC are very anti-drinking. I am leading and teaching a 2 week tour of Israel this summer, and though in my previous time spent in Israel I greatly enjoyed tasting some local wines, I will not be drinking anything on this trip so as not to offend anyone.

So yes, we should be concious of our audience, TO AN EXTENT, and care for the soul of the weaker brother.

Now let's turn it around a little bit. Example 3 My wife and I go out for a date night, and we go to a nice dinner. We will be ordering drinks, she will probably have a frozen margarita, and I will likely have a Pina Colada, or a nice glass of wine, or even a nice imported ale, depending on the meal selection.

Example 4, I keep wine, imported beer, rum and Grand Mariner in my home for both cooking and drinking purposes. Now I never have more than two drinks, I never get drunk, and in fact in the last two weeks I have probably had all of two drinks period.

So, are we to care for our brother? Yes. Does that mean that we must totally abstain? Well, if that is the conviction of your heart, then yes, because the Bible tells us it's a sin to violate your conscience.

However, one had best stop before telling us that we all must completely abstain or that drinking is ungodly ... especially seeing as it is something that Jesus so regularly took part in, and which is spoken of favorably throughout the Bible.

i get you now, and completely agree with the entirety of this post.
I think that i was misunderstanding what you were saying.

 

[LadyGarnetRose]

i get you now, and completely agree with the entirety of this post.
I think that i was misunderstanding what you were saying.


</IMG>

I've tried to say the same thing, just not as eloquently.

 

[FallingWaters]

Mrs. Joy, let's try to get practical here in order to maybe come to more of an understanding. I am not sure that we need be so far apart.

You are right there are times we must give up our freedom for need of the weaker brother.

For instance, Example 1, I have a married couple who I minister to, and they are recovered alcoholics. When they come over, any beer or wine disapears, and anything I cook will not have any alcohol in it. I don't drink any time they are around at any event or gathering.

Example number 2, I attend a Southern Baptist Convention church, and many in the SBC are very anti-drinking. I am leading and teaching a 2 week tour of Israel this summer, and though in my previous time spent in Israel I greatly enjoyed tasting some local wines, I will not be drinking anything on this trip so as not to offend anyone.

So yes, we should be concious of our audience, TO AN EXTENT, and care for the soul of the weaker brother.

Now let's turn it around a little bit. Example 3 My wife and I go out for a date night, and we go to a nice dinner. We will be ordering drinks, she will probably have a frozen margarita, and I will likely have a Pina Colada, or a nice glass of wine, or even a nice imported ale, depending on the meal selection.

Example 4, I keep wine, imported beer, rum and Grand Mariner in my home for both cooking and drinking purposes. Now I never have more than two drinks, I never get drunk, and in fact in the last two weeks I have probably had all of two drinks period.

So, are we to care for our brother? Yes. Does that mean that we must totally abstain? Well, if that is the conviction of your heart, then yes, because the Bible tells us it's a sin to violate your conscience.

However, one had best stop before telling us that we all must completely abstain or that drinking is ungodly ... especially seeing as it is something that Jesus so regularly took part in, and which is spoken of favorably throughout the Bible.

I respect your deference to your brothers and sisters in the Lord.
It speaks very highly of you.

 

[MarkEvan]

the corinthians were not Hebrew, they did not follow levitical law.
cute though.

Hello MrsJoy,

You are right they are not jews, but as has already been said by sojurner, James at the counsel of Jerusalem (acts 15) declared meats sacrificed to idols to be unclean and something gentiles should abstane from, this I believe to be taken from the OT, and allthough they were not jews, they were to begin with, to adhere to this part of the Levitical Law. Why Paul then over turned this I do not know (allthough I have a theory), but the fact seems to remain that some of the corinthians sticked with what James had said and were obediant to the levitical law. Paul appears to say that they were not wrong to do so but that the more excellent way was the understanding that meat sacrificed to idols is and means nothing.

Mark

This also I believe answers your point sojurner (if you are still reading this).

My appologies for taking this off topic somewhat.

 

[MrsJoy]

Hello MrsJoy,

You are right they are not jews, but as has already been said by sojurner, James at the counsel of Jerusalem (acts 15) declared meats sacrificed to idols to be unclean and something gentiles should abstane from, this I believe to be taken from the OT, and allthough they were not jews, they were to begin with, to adhere to this part of the Levitical Law. Why Paul then over turned this I do not know (allthough I have a theory), but the fact seems to remain that some of the corinthians sticked with what James had said and were obediant to the levitical law. Paul appears to say that they were not wrong to do so but that the more excellent way was the understanding that meat sacrificed to idols is and means nothing.

Mark

This also I believe answers your point sojurner (if you are still reading this).

My appologies for taking this off topic somewhat.

dig a little deeper.
they were not sacrificing ONLY UNCLEAN animals.
there is not a connection with unclean animals here.
he was speaking to the issue at hand-eating meat offered to idols.

 

[kw5kw]

There was a post a few pages back that mentioned that it would be practically impossible for the people of the first century not to make grape juice into wine.

This would be very true, in fact it would be true all the way from Creation until the latter half of the nineteenth century; because before April 20, 1862 ( when the first pasteurization test was completed by Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard) there was no way to remove, or to stop, the natural process of fermentation. Grape juice either fermented—naturally or, if left alone, it spoiled.

This is true because of the yeast. The yeast that is normally already present on the grapes. This natural yeast is often visible as a powdery film that we call “bloom” or “blush” that is present on the skin of the fruit. Yeast is used in wine making where it converts the sugars present in the “must” (the juice of the freshly pressed grapes) that allows the fermentation of the grape into alcohol. During this process CO2 gas is released and this is the reason that Jesus said in Matthew ix:17 (and repeated in Mark ii:22 and in Luke v:37-9):

"Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins; ​

but if not [fig., or else] the wineskins are burst, ​

and the wine is poured out, ​

and the wineskins will be ruined. _​

But_ they put new wine into new wineskins, ​

and both are preserved together." ​

(ALT)​

If the wine was left in old wineskins (&#945;&#787;&#963;&#954;&#959;&#769;&#962; [askos] (as-kos'): a leathern (or skin) bag used as a bottle) then the old wineskins were already stretched and they could not stretch any further (because of the production of the CO2) and therefore the old wineskins would break thereby spilling the contents; a wine maker in those days had to use new wineskins—new containers—so the skins would be flexible enough to stretch and not break.

Jesus knew this and that is why he made such a comment.

God made all fruit, not just grapes, to have some sort of yeast growing upon their skin to aid in the fermentation process.

If God made it that way, then I'm sure that He designed it to allow for grapes to be made into wine... full fledged, alcohol containing, wine.

When you think about it without adding all of the prejudiced, legalistic teachings then one can begin to understand what the Apostle Paul means when he says in I Timothy v:31: "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. "

I am your Brother in Christ, a Child of God,
Russ

 

[MarkEvan]

dig a little deeper.
they were not sacrificing ONLY UNCLEAN animals.
there is not a connection with unclean animals here.
he was speaking to the issue at hand-eating meat offered to idols.

My appologies, you are right the.......darn it just seen the colour of my post.........issue is not with animals that are unclean but with those that were sacrificed to idols, allthough I knew the latter to be the case, and what paul was addressing, i took it that the animals were unclean anyway, (not in the sense that they were amongst those listed as unclean but because they had been sacrificed to idols) thank you for clearing that up.

Mark