How is being drunk a sin ?

[Virgil the Roman]

How is being drunk a sin, whenever, Christ gave more wine to already intoxicated and drunk persons at the Wedding-feast at Cana?

 

[Michie]

How do you know everyone was highly intoxicated or staggering drunk at the wedding feast of Cana?

 

[Rebekka]

How do you know everyone was highly intoxicated or staggering drunk at the wedding feast of Cana?

Maybe not everyone, but it is implied that many were drunk, otherwise there would have been no need for a miracle.

The bible is full of contradictions, this is just one of them.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I think they were drinking wine, but weren't drunk.

John 2:1-3
The next day there was a wedding celebration in the village of Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the celebration. The wine supply ran out during the festivities, so Jesus’ mother told him, “They have no more wine.”

(I don't see any indication that they were drunk. It was a long fest and they needed more wine over the coarse of that.)

The bible has passages that show getting drunk is not good for you.

Like in Ephesians 5:17-19
Don’t act thoughtlessly, but understand what the Lord wants you to do. Don’t be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, and making music to the Lord in your hearts.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Being drunk is a sin because it goes against the virtue of self control, which is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. It also doesn't help to fight the passions.

 

[Michie]

Maybe not everyone, but it is implied that many were drunk, otherwise there would have been no need for a miracle.

The bible is full of contradictions, this is just one of them.

Wedding feasts usually lasted about 7 days. Eating & sleeping were involved too. So I'm not so sure anyone was unacceptably drunk.

Buzzed & happy yeah, but I never got the impression it was a boozefest.

 

[Rebekka]

Wedding feasts usually lasted about 7 days. Eating & sleeping were involved too. So I'm not so sure anyone was unacceptably drunk.

Buzzed & happy yeah, but I never got the impression it was a boozefest.

Well, buzzed & happy is still sort of drunk (you are not sober), it wasn't a teetotalers wedding. Sure, you shouldn't get so drunk that you pass out or can't remember what you did, or so drunk that you do stupid or dangerous things. (What about so drunk that you do wonderful things? "You may not do evil so that good may come of it" [see Mike's thread on contraception], but what if I had never saved your life because I was too shy to make a spectacle of myself and jump in the river to rescue you? Alcohol makes me less self-conscious. So in that case, being drunk is the lesser evil, letting someone drown the greater one. )



I hope there will be booze on my BIL's wedding next week - he's marrying a very strict protestant so I'm not exactly sure.

 

[Chrystal-J]

I think there was probably a lot of people there, so a lot of wine could of been had with-out anyone getting drunk. Plus, I think the wine then was less potent than it is now. (Read that somewhere, but no time to look it up as I'm on my way to Mass.)

 

[Michie]

Well, buzzed & happy is still sort of drunk (you are not sober), it wasn't a teetotalers wedding. Sure, you shouldn't get so drunk that you pass out or can't remember what you did, or so drunk that you do stupid or dangerous things. (What about so drunk that you do wonderful things? "You may not do evil so that good may come of it" [see Mike's thread on contraception], but what if I had never saved your life because I was too shy to make a spectacle of myself and jump in the river to rescue you? Alcohol makes me less self-conscious. So in that case, being drunk is the lesser evil, letting someone drown the greater one. )



I hope there will be booze on my BIL's wedding next week - he's marrying a very strict protestant so I'm not exactly sure.

Buzzed & happy does not mean slobbering drunk though.

It also means you still have control of your faculties.

Don't count on booze at the protestant wedding. You better BYOB.

 

[Michie]

I think there was probably a lot of people there, so a lot of wine could of been had with-out anyone getting drunk. Plus, I think the wine then was less potent than it is now. (Read that somewhere, but no time to look it up as I'm on my way to Mass.)

I read something along the same lines. But there is warning in Scripture about not getting drunk. Speaks a lot about it in Proverbs.

 

[Rebekka]

I think there was probably a lot of people there, so a lot of wine could of been had with-out anyone getting drunk. Plus, I think the wine then was less potent than it is now. (Read that somewhere, but no time to look it up as I'm on my way to Mass.)

"And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."" (John 2:9-10)


Why do people serve the good wine first, and the cheap plonk later? Because good wine is wasted on people who are drunk - they won't notice the difference anyway (pearls before swine). This principle still applies today.

The bolded implies that in this case, people have drunk freely = are drunk, or buzzed, in any case this was the moment to serve the two buck chuck rather than the Chateau Pétrus. But instead of serving inferior (and weaker) wine, Jesus' wine is better in quality (stronger), He's doing things the other way round (which is also in line with the "the last shall be first", He likes to turn things upside down - also in the temple by the way), which is the other remarkable thing besides the miracle.

 

[Chrystal-J]

"And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."" (John 2:9-10)


Why do people serve the good wine first, and the cheap plonk later? Because good wine is wasted on people who are drunk - they won't notice the difference anyway (pearls before swine). This principle still applies today.

The bolded implies that in this case, people have drunk freely = are drunk, or buzzed, in any case this was the moment to serve the two buck chuck rather than the Chateau Pétrus. But instead of serving inferior (and weaker) wine, Jesus' wine is better in quality (stronger), He's doing things the other way round (which is also in line with the "the last shall be first", He likes to turn things upside down - also in the temple by the way), which is the other remarkable thing besides the miracle.

Or it could me "drunk" as in past tense. Example: I drunk some soda. Since they used the word "have" then "drunk", I would think it meant that instead of meaning they "got drunk".

 

[Michie]

"And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."" (John 2:9-10)


Why do people serve the good wine first, and the cheap plonk later? Because good wine is wasted on people who are drunk - they won't notice the difference anyway (pearls before swine). This principle still applies today.

The bolded implies that in this case, people have drunk freely = are drunk, or buzzed, in any case this was the moment to serve the two buck chuck rather than the Chateau Pétrus. But instead of serving inferior (and weaker) wine, Jesus' wine is better in quality (stronger), He's doing things the other way round (which is also in line with the "the last shall be first", He likes to turn things upside down - also in the temple by the way), which is the other remarkable thing besides the miracle.

Even on a buzz the cheap stuff goes down easier rather than trying to drink it first.

 

[Rebekka]

Or it could me "drunk" as in past tense. Example: I drunk some soda. Since they used the word "have" then "drunk", I would think it meant that instead of meaning they "got drunk".

It's not that. If you have drunk a lot, it's likely that you're drunk. (Or buzzed, or whatever - that depends on if you're a frequent drinker or not.) So "when people have drunk freely", and the liquid they've drunk is wine (which is the case here), they will be drunk to some degree. As I said, they may not have become unconscious from drinking, but they are definitely in the partying mood, not sober. It wasn't grape juice.

 

[Rebekka]

Even on a buzz the cheap stuff goes down easier rather than trying to drink it first.

OK, language barrier here. Could you rephrase this sentence? I'm not sure how to parse this one.

 

[Michie]

OK, language barrier here. Could you rephrase this sentence? I'm not sure how to parse this one.

When you are buzzed...it is easier to drink the cheap stuff rather than starting on it.

I guess the point I'm making is that Scripture does warn against drunkeness. Mostly because drunkeness makes us do stupid things, make bad decisions.

We can drink...but in moderation & not to the point of being a drunken slob blacking out all over the place.

I think we can safely assume that this wedding was a long celebration & celebrated according to the culture. But I don't think Jesus' first miracle is somehow condoning getting snockered to the point of uncontrollable drunkeness.

The people drank freely but I don't see anything that really suggests anything other than a wedding feast celebration that was the norm. They ran out of wine before the feast was over. Which would had been highly embarrassing for them. These were probably not wealthy people so I have a hard time thinking it was anything other than a normal wedding celebration without huge excess. Just my take on it.

 

[Rebekka]

When you are buzzed...it is easier to drink the cheap stuff rather than starting on it.

Ah, I see I still don't understand. Do you mean that the cheaper wine is easier to drink than the more expensive wine, OR do you mean that the cheaper wine is easier to drink when you're not sober anymore than when you are sober - because it doesn't taste very good, and your throat protests at first, until you've had so much that you can't really tell the difference between good and bad wine?

I guess the point I'm making is that Scripture does warn against drunkeness. Mostly because drunkeness makes us do stupid things, make bad decisions.

We can drink...but in moderation & not to the point of being a drunken slob blacking out all over the place.

Oh, I'm trying to make that point, too -but in moderation. Being really very drunk indeed = sinful. Being buzzed & happy = not sinful, in the right situation (weddings and other festivities, when not driving etc).

I think we can safely assume that this wedding was a long celebration & celebrated according to the culture. But I don't think Jesus' first miracle is somehow condoning getting snockered to the point of uncontrollable drunkeness.

The people drank freely but I don't see anything that really suggests anything other than a wedding feast celebration that was the norm.

Indeed, and drinking freely was apparently the norm. (It still is, at weddings. I met my husband at a wedding. )

They ran out of wine before the feast was over. Which would had been highly embarrassing for them. These were probably not wealthy people so I have a hard time thinking it was anything other than a normal wedding celebration without huge excess. Just my take on it.

I agree - but to me, there are so many degrees of intoxication, and the guests may not have been excessively drunk, but still at least somewhat drunk, tipsy, buzzed. I would have to twist the story if I had to imagine that they were not at all drunk. They must have been buzzed enough to be in the "should serve the cheap stuff now" stage.

 

[Michie]

Ah, I see I still don't understand. Do you mean that the cheaper wine is easier to drink than the more expensive wine, OR do you mean that the cheaper wine is easier to drink when you're not sober anymore than when you are sober - because it doesn't taste very good, and your throat protests at first, until you've had so much that you can't really tell the difference between good and bad wine?

The cheap stuff is easier to drink after your relaxed. Not necessarily drunk...but the warm fuzzy feeling after a drink. You can tell the difference but it goes down easier.

Oh, I'm trying to make that point, too -but in moderation. Being really very drunk indeed = sinful. Being buzzed & happy = not sinful, in the right situation (weddings and other festivities, when not driving etc).

Agreed. My dad was killed by a drunk driver so I'm a little sensitive on the whole drunkeness thing.

Indeed, and drinking freely was apparently the norm. (It still is, at weddings. I met my husband at a wedding. )

Nice!

I agree - but to me, there are so many degrees of intoxication, and the guests may not have been excessively drunk, but still at least somewhat drunk, tipsy, buzzed. I would have to twist the story if I had to imagine that they were not at all drunk. They must have been buzzed enough to be in the "should serve the cheap stuff now" stage.

Buzzed, but I don't think of it as drunk as in sloppy gross drunk.

 

[Rebekka]

The cheap stuff is easier to drink after your relaxed. Not necessarily drunk...but the warm fuzzy feeling after a drink. You can tell the difference but it goes down easier.

Yes, the "good wine first, cheap wine later" rule is for two reasons:
1. good wine is wasted on people who've had a few already, they can't appreciate it fully anymore.
2. cheap wine doesn't taste horrible anymore when you've had a few.

Actually that's two sides of one reason: your tastebuds get numb when you're intoxicated.

Agreed. My dad was killed by a drunk driver so I'm a little sensitive on the whole drunkeness thing.

Oh, that's horrible! Yes, I can imagine. I hate irresponsible driving - not only drunk driving but also driving while you're on the phone or texting. I would like to see that punished more strictly.

Buzzed, but I don't think of it as drunk as in sloppy gross drunk.

Me neither.

 

[Michie]

Yes, the "good wine first, cheap wine later" rule is for two reasons:
1. good wine is wasted on people who've had a few already, they can't appreciate it fully anymore.
2. cheap wine doesn't taste horrible anymore when you've had a few.

Actually that's two sides of one reason: your tastebuds get numb when you're intoxicated.


Oh, that's horrible! Yes, I can imagine. I hate irresponsible driving - not only drunk driving but also driving while you're on the phone or texting. I would like to see that punished more strictly.


Me neither.

Yay! We agree.