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

[Acts2:38]

I'm rather skeptical of your article. Sorry.

I wouldnt want anyone to take just the article at face value though, you compare it to scripture and the Greek wording.

I picked the article because it was compared and found truthful. skepticism is fine when you can scrutinize to see for yourself. skepticism is not fine when one blows it off without ever finding out really whats up.

 

[blackhole]

I wouldn’t want to profit from anything that could potentially become a stumbling block for someone. From my extensive experience as a sinful unbeliever til the age of 38 years old there were very few that I can recall who didn’t drink to get drunk. I would put the ratio around 1 out of 30 people that I knew didn’t drink to get drunk. But then again perhaps we are from different crowds. I grew up around the blue collar Texas crowd. Predominantly unbelievers.

Biblical, show the relevance of profiting.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Isn't it using sons of Israel in the sense of those who have faith, not those who have certain ancestors? See below.

Rom 9
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Rom 11
7 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Gal 3
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

No it can’t be otherwise that would be a contradiction of scripture, the sons of Israel in this case must refer to Jews, unless you believe Jesus and Paul contradicted each other.

 

[blackhole]

No it can’t be otherwise that would be a contradiction of scripture, the sons of Israel in this case must refer to Jews, unless you believe Jesus and Paul contradicted each other.

False dichotomy.

 

[chevyontheriver]

From my extensive experience as a sinful unbeliever til the age of 38 years old there were very few that I can recall who didn’t drink to get drunk. I would put the ratio around 1 out of 30 people that I knew didn’t drink to get drunk. But then again perhaps we are from different crowds. I grew up around the blue collar Texas crowd. Predominantly unbelievers.

People I know cut it off at one or two beers. Three absolute tops. Different crowds.

 

[Redwingfan9]

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

There is no similarity. Paul is teaching that it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols but warns against doing so in temples or in ceremonies related to those idols. There is no sin in drinking, so there is no sin in owning a liquor store. If there is sin in owning a liquor store because someone might buy liquor and get drunk, then it must also be sin to own a grocery store because some might eat food in a gluttonous manner. In fact we couldn't own stores of any sort because it might cause some to covet. The possibilities are endless, which is what Paul teaches us that we have liberty to do all things lawful in Christ.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I wouldnt want anyone to take just the article at face value though, you compare it to scripture and the Greek wording.

I picked the article because it was compared and found truthful. skepticism is fine when you can scrutinize to see for yourself. skepticism is not fine when one blows it off without ever finding out really whats up.

I did read your article, and I found it lacking. It's basically supporting a presupposition that the consumption of alcohol has to be evil, and thus that Scripture has to mean something different from what it says.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Biblical, show the relevance of profiting.

Well I wouldn’t put gaining worldly treasures above gaining heavenly treasures. In the same manner I wouldn’t put a stumbling block in other’s path for worldly profit.

“"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. "The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭6:19-24‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

False dichotomy.

Then how do you explain the appearance of the contradiction?

 

[blackhole]

Well I wouldn’t put gaining worldly treasures above gaining heavenly treasures. In the same manner I wouldn’t put a stumbling block in other’s path for worldly profit.

“"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. "The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭6:19-24‬ ‭NASB‬‬

I don't see any connection to that and profiting with the temptation that you create. I'd argue that it's equally wrong, or perhaps even less so, if you profit while creating temptation compared to not profiting or losing money. If you're profiting, it shows a divided heart. If you're not profiting, it shows a purely wicked heart; you don't love money, you love evil.

 

[BNR32FAN]

People I know cut it off at one or two beers. Three absolute tops. Different crowds.

The crowd I mostly hung around with were usually competing to see who could drink the most.

 

[bèlla]

We have several bars, clubs, and restaurants serving alcohol to alfresco diners in our neighborhood. The patrons aren’t unruly and police maintain a presence near the bars. Most people know how to imbibe without overindulging or causing a scene. Setting plays a big part in the clientele you attract.

~Bella

 

[blackhole]

Then how do you explain the appearance of the contradiction?

It's not a contradiction, but there could be an alternative explanation such as: the text says they ate the meat and committed fornication. Is it a sin because of that combination; was eating meat the first part, and fornicating the second part, of an evil ceremony? I don't know, but alternative explanations often arise.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't see any connection to that and profiting with the temptation that you create. I'd argue that it's equally wrong, or perhaps even less so, if you profit while creating temptation compared to not profiting or losing money. If you're profiting, it shows a divided heart. If you're not profiting, it shows a purely wicked heart; you don't love money, you love evil.

“"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18:7‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[blackhole]

“"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18:7‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Seriously? Completely irrelevant. This is about the effect that profiting has, not whether the stumbling block is bad.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's not a contradiction, but there could be an alternative explanation such as: the text says they ate the meat and committed fornication. Is it a sin because of that combination; was eating meat the first part, and fornicating the second part, of an evil ceremony? I don't know, but alternative explanations often arise.

Well it says acts of immorality but since He mentioned both I would conclude that both are relevant even by doing one without the other.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Seriously? Completely irrelevant. This is about the effect that profiting has, not whether the stumbling block is bad.

If you agree the stumbling block is bad then the discussion of profiting from it is irrelevant.

 

[blackhole]

If you agree the stumbling block is bad then the discussion of profiting from it is irrelevant.

I'm not the one that brought profit into the conversation. Twice I've read other poster(s) say that they wouldn't want to profit from stumbling someone, as if that's a requirement for it being wrong or at least somehow makes it much worse.

 

[Acts2:38]

It's basically supporting a presupposition that the consumption of alcohol has to be evil

Your view proposes that just because Timothy had a "little wine" for his stomach (medical need) that its okay to do for recreation purposes. Which is an inherently flawed concept.

The greek word used with Timothy, and a plethora of other verses, is onios (wine) which could quite mean grape juice as well.

Welch's grape juice long ago use to advertise their product as saying that it helps upset stomach. The greek word onios could be used to say either fermented or unfermented. Which is one point I tried to get across to you. That word back then was on par with saying "I am going to have a drink". That could mean either/ or now days.

Next is the context. Which never really supports an agreement to use alcohol for recreation and fun.

Even secular studies prove that even one drink begins to impair your body functions, and if we are to remain sober as scripture states, you would be one drink drunk.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not the one that brought profit into the conversation. Twice I've read other poster(s) say that they wouldn't want to profit from stumbling someone, as if that's a requirement for it being wrong or at least somehow makes it much worse.

Personally I think it makes it worse if the person isn’t caring about putting a stumbling block in his brother’s path and is more concerned with worldly profit. I’m not insinuating that this is your intention at all but if I were in that situation I would run from it.