Is it okay for a U.S. christian to own a liquor store?

[blackhole]

I drink responsibly, and I believe Christians should know what it means to drink responsibly. The one reservation I would have against owning a liquor store is there would be customers that abuse alcohol, and abuse their families. And as a consequence, my conduct could be on the wrong side of Matthew 18:7-8.

I've wondered about that verse too. I assume that it means much more immediate tempting, e.g. peer pressure to sin rather than merely allowing the possibility for your excess. I have varied reasons for saying that, but primarily because of this example: Wal-Mart is then evil, because it tempts people to steal. And that's not hypothetical; there's A LOT of theft from Wal-Mart in the U.S.; I spoke to an employee who explained the law and the store's policy, and the crazy amount of theft.

 

[Sketcher]

I've wondered about that verse too. I assume that it means much more immediate tempting, e.g. peer pressure to sin rather than merely allowing the possibility for your excess. I have varied reasons for saying that, but primarily because of this example: Wal-Mart is then evil, because it tempts people to steal. And that's not hypothetical; there's A LOT of theft from Wal-Mart in the U.S.; I spoke to an employee who explained the law and the store's policy, and the crazy amount of theft.

How does Wal-Mart tempt people to steal? Also, that seems to be more of a reach than the example of owning a liquor store.

 

[bèlla]

This is an interesting question. I don’t think I’d do it. I’d have no qualms owning a winery and I’m not making distinctions with spirits. I worked in a high end wine shop in the past.

I don’t see the connection between a liquor store and my calling. I can visualize gatherings overlooking the vineyard with great food, lively company, and fellowship.

But I don’t think a liquor store evokes the same or provides an atmosphere for communal engagement.

~Bella

 

[blackhole]

How does Wal-Mart tempt people to steal? Also, that seems to be more of a reach than the example of owning a liquor store.

How do liquor stores owned by Christians tempt people to get drunk?

Both supply the means to sin. Neither sets that as their goal. Neither recommends it. Both are against it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It is as you have said. Paul was not commanding anything; he was speaking for himself and saying that his choice was to avoid scandalizing other people even though he was free to do what they might think wrong. So he decided against doing it. This is not the only situation, by the way, in which Paul speaks about his own choices as opposed to dealing in absolutes.

Paul being a Jew is forbidden to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Gentiles however were permitted to eat meat sacrificed to idols if they didn’t know that it was sacrificed to an idol.

Revelation 2 Jesus rebukes the Church in Pergamum for allowing the sons of Israel (Jews) to eat meat offered to idols.

“But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[IntriKate]

I think it would be a good way to get respect from the regular customers to open an avenue to witness. How else can we reach the lost if we aren’t amongst them?

 

[Albion]

Paul being a Jew is forbidden to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Gentiles however were permitted to eat meat sacrificed to idols if they didn’t know that it was sacrificed to an idol.

Revelation 2 Jesus rebukes the Church in Pergamum for allowing the sons of Israel (Jews) to eat meat offered to idols.

This part explains the diff.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This part explains the diff.

It was this portion I was referring to.

Paul was not commanding anything; he was speaking for himself and saying that his choice was to avoid scandalizing other people even though he was free to do what they might think wrong.

Paul being a Jew was not free to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

 

[blackhole]

Paul being a Jew is forbidden to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The Gentiles however were permitted to eat meat sacrificed to idols if they didn’t know that it was sacrificed to an idol.‬‬

That's contrary to 1Co 10:25 & 28-29. Paul was permitted to eat it.

Eat it -- ask no questions for the conscience of the other. He had liberty. Their conscience didn't.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I get what you're saying, people could come into the liquor store, buy something and get drunk and do bad stuff later. But they could also buy alcohol and just have a good night. Alcohol is not universally bad, unlike say a pornography or sex shops. Same could be said of firearms or pharmacies or anything with potentially dangerous products.

I think it best for the individual Christian to judge for themselves on this matter. If I had a store and I was constantly selling to people who I knew were getting drunk and was not contributing anything but pain and misery to the local community I might consider closing down or selling it. If however most of my clients were reasonable and the community around me didn't have those incidents often I would continue to operate such a store.

It's one of those issues where we are free to determine for ourselves the best course of action.

 

[charsan]

1Co 9
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

1Co 10
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

--------------

I am not interested in owning a liqour store. However, my interest is a near-direct correlate. I am not going to explain what it is, because that will derail the thread.

My question: is it acceptable for a Christian to own a liquor store? It seems that it would make it difficult to share the gospel with a lot of people, because of our society's negative view; they assume a Christian shouldn't do such a thing. However, immediacy does seem to be a major function. If Paul was a Jew to the Jews, and something else when dealing with others, then clearly those role would contradict. If the Jew found out about Paul's behavior before others, he would be offended; Paul didn't seem to be worried about this (unless Paul took an inclusive approach, and did nothing that would offend anyone, anywhere, at any time). It seems that Paul's concern was for the immediate; for example, he might not eat sacrificed meat in front of them, but he might eat it in private. Or he might own a liquor store, but he might not purchase it in front of the offendable parties.

And what about quasi-immediacy? Specifically this: if you decide that it's okay to own the liquor store and you buy it, but then someone that you're speaking to directly finds out and lets you know that they think it's wrong, do you have to sell the store?

Lastly, how far do we take this? If we own a beautiful car and someone says we should have instead spent that extra money to feed the hungry, do we have to sell it and do just that? cf. Pro 31 and also the coat of many colors. Regarding which issues (cars? liquor stores?) or in which situations (immediacy?) or other factors (majority opinion?) do we become all things to all people?

And remember that Paul publicly stated (in the Bible) that Timothy was to drink an alcoholic drink (wine). This offends many Christians.

Of course it's okay, no different from anything else or any other business

 

[Bob Carabbio]

1Co 10 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his.

There's your governing principle, along with Rom 14:23 (and previous verses). You're supposed to care about the others, and not offend them (where possible - lots of Christian things are "Offensive" to folks these days).

However, IF YOU CAN'T DO IT IN FAITH (which obviously you couldn't since you asked if it was O.K.) then for YOU it's SIN. Simple as that.

IF you're moving in Biblical FAITH, you don't have to ask anybody anything - just DO IT.

 

[Redwingfan9]

1Co 9
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

1Co 10
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

--------------

I am not interested in owning a liqour store. However, my interest is a near-direct correlate. I am not going to explain what it is, because that will derail the thread.

My question: is it acceptable for a Christian to own a liquor store? It seems that it would make it difficult to share the gospel with a lot of people, because of our society's negative view; they assume a Christian shouldn't do such a thing. However, immediacy does seem to be a major function. If Paul was a Jew to the Jews, and something else when dealing with others, then clearly those role would contradict. If the Jew found out about Paul's behavior before others, he would be offended; Paul didn't seem to be worried about this (unless Paul took an inclusive approach, and did nothing that would offend anyone, anywhere, at any time). It seems that Paul's concern was for the immediate; for example, he might not eat sacrificed meat in front of them, but he might eat it in private. Or he might own a liquor store, but he might not purchase it in front of the offendable parties.

And what about quasi-immediacy? Specifically this: if you decide that it's okay to own the liquor store and you buy it, but then someone that you're speaking to directly finds out and lets you know that they think it's wrong, do you have to sell the store?

Lastly, how far do we take this? If we own a beautiful car and someone says we should have instead spent that extra money to feed the hungry, do we have to sell it and do just that? cf. Pro 31 and also the coat of many colors. Regarding which issues (cars? liquor stores?) or in which situations (immediacy?) or other factors (majority opinion?) do we become all things to all people?

And remember that Paul publicly stated (in the Bible) that Timothy was to drink an alcoholic drink (wine). This offends many Christians.

In light of the fact that drinking isn't sin, the answer is no.

 

[blackhole]

In light of the fact that drinking isn't sin, the answer is no.

But neither was eating the meat, so what's your method of dealing with that similarity?

 

[Acts2:38]

You and Paul should still talk.

Your article basically says wine is really grape juice and that if it were actually wine Jesus would have sinned by making wine. It's a hermetically sealed argument that does not allow words to have their normal meaning.

You must have missed the parts about the Greek word and its meaning and the context applied with that Greek word.

In any case, your free to do what you will. The OP'er asked, I responded. This isnt a thread on correction is it?

If you want to discuss this, make another thread and we can discuss our points.

 

[charsan]

How does Wal-Mart tempt people to steal? Also, that seems to be more of a reach than the example of owning a liquor store.

Agreed. Wal-mart nor any store tempts people to steal, people steel from their misguided choices. You can't blame business for people's deeds that is like saying God created us so we are tempted to be bad.

 

[blackhole]

that is like saying God created us so we are tempted to be bad.

I love that.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

1Co 9
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

1Co 10
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

--------------

Why is this even a question?

I am not interested in owning a liqour store. However, my interest is a near-direct correlate. I am not going to explain what it is, because that will derail the thread.

My question: is it acceptable for a Christian to own a liquor store? It seems that it would make it difficult to share the gospel with a lot of people, because of our society's negative view; they assume a Christian shouldn't do such a thing. However, immediacy does seem to be a major function. If Paul was a Jew to the Jews, and something else when dealing with others, then clearly those role would contradict. If the Jew found out about Paul's behavior before others, he would be offended; Paul didn't seem to be worried about this (unless Paul took an inclusive approach, and did nothing that would offend anyone, anywhere, at any time). It seems that Paul's concern was for the immediate; for example, he might not eat sacrificed meat in front of them, but he might eat it in private. Or he might own a liquor store, but he might not purchase it in front of the offendable parties.

And what about quasi-immediacy? Specifically this: if you decide that it's okay to own the liquor store and you buy it, but then someone that you're speaking to directly finds out and lets you know that they think it's wrong, do you have to sell the store?

Lastly, how far do we take this? If we own a beautiful car and someone says we should have instead spent that extra money to feed the hungry, do we have to sell it and do just that? cf. Pro 31 and also the coat of many colors. Regarding which issues (cars? liquor stores?) or in which situations (immediacy?) or other factors (majority opinion?) do we become all things to all people?

And remember that Paul publicly stated (in the Bible) that Timothy was to drink an alcoholic drink (wine). This offends many Christians.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

1Co 9
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

1Co 10
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

--------------

I am not interested in owning a liqour store. However, my interest is a near-direct correlate. I am not going to explain what it is, because that will derail the thread.

My question: is it acceptable for a Christian to own a liquor store? It seems that it would make it difficult to share the gospel with a lot of people, because of our society's negative view; they assume a Christian shouldn't do such a thing. However, immediacy does seem to be a major function. If Paul was a Jew to the Jews, and something else when dealing with others, then clearly those role would contradict. If the Jew found out about Paul's behavior before others, he would be offended; Paul didn't seem to be worried about this (unless Paul took an inclusive approach, and did nothing that would offend anyone, anywhere, at any time). It seems that Paul's concern was for the immediate; for example, he might not eat sacrificed meat in front of them, but he might eat it in private. Or he might own a liquor store, but he might not purchase it in front of the offendable parties.

And what about quasi-immediacy? Specifically this: if you decide that it's okay to own the liquor store and you buy it, but then someone that you're speaking to directly finds out and lets you know that they think it's wrong, do you have to sell the store?

Lastly, how far do we take this? If we own a beautiful car and someone says we should have instead spent that extra money to feed the hungry, do we have to sell it and do just that? cf. Pro 31 and also the coat of many colors. Regarding which issues (cars? liquor stores?) or in which situations (immediacy?) or other factors (majority opinion?) do we become all things to all people?

And remember that Paul publicly stated (in the Bible) that Timothy was to drink an alcoholic drink (wine). This offends many Christians.

Is it Okay to allow pretty girls into the worship service, because some men might lust after them?

 

[topher694]

Of course it's okay, no different from anything else or any other business

Would this include owning a strip club then?