The Real Deal

[BondGirl]

The same could be said for repeat takers of medicine..... BTW: My stomach doesn't bother me except for when I am cramping.... (go figure....) - however how many SDA's that don't dare drink WINE will take a Tylenol or will immediately get "knocked out" when they get a tooth pulled.

Again - all or none. That is my stance. To those that take any form of medication - their is no "wiggle room" - being that the medicine for "stomach sake" in my Bible said WINE. Not juice - but WINE. If it wanted to say JUICE it would have translated to JUICE. Celebrations at that time in the Bible didn't take place with JUICE, but with WINE. (I still don't get how in some areas of the Bible it is being said that WINE translated to unfermented JUICE; yet in other areas WINE is translated to plain ol' fermented WINE....)

I wonder how many SDA's will condemn someone to hell for a sip of WINE every now and then, yet will take a Tylenol for a headache every now and then.....

I have my understanding of the scripture. You have yours.
You have made your points, I in turn have made mine.

I can agree - to disagree on this point and let it go at that.

 

[Seraph1m]

The same could be said for repeat takers of medicine..... BTW: My stomach doesn't bother me except for when I am cramping.... (go figure....) - however how many SDA's that don't dare drink WINE will take a Tylenol or will immediately get "knocked out" when they get a tooth pulled.

I understood the point you were making... we all do not seem to have grasped that everything is not a personal issue for one of us in particular, but one may use themselves as an example. Thus folk may not stress about what you or another might being doing.

Again - all or none. That is my stance. To those that take any form of medication - their is no "wiggle room" - being that the medicine for "stomach sake" in my Bible said WINE. Not juice - but WINE. If it wanted to say JUICE it would have translated to JUICE. Celebrations at that time in the Bible didn't take place with JUICE, but with WINE. (I still don't get how in some areas of the Bible it is being said that WINE translated to unfermented JUICE; yet in other areas WINE is translated to plain ol' fermented WINE....)

I wonder how many SDA's will condemn someone to hell for a sip of WINE every now and then, yet will take a Tylenol for a headache every now and then.....

I have my understanding of the scripture. You have yours.
You have made your points, I in turn have made mine.

I can agree - to disagree on this point and let it go at that.

Exactly... nuff said.

 

[Princessdi]

You know they tried this once before, right? It was called Prohibition, and it was a resounding failure. With limited resources and technology, they made it bath tubs, imagine what they could do today.

If I were looking for wiggle room I wouldn't be advocating national temperance. I just signed my name on a petition yesterday to encourage the city council to uphold ordinances that would ban smoking in our town too. I would be more than willing to do the same with drinking if they were considering it, but unfortunately they are not.

 

[Princessdi]

We really do get caught up in making sure everyone is "doing" the right thing, or at least look like it to our satisfaction.

I understood the point you were making... we all do not seem to have grasped that everything is not a personal issue for one of us in particular, but one may use themselves as an example. Thus folk may not stress about what you or another might being doing.

Exactly... nuff said.

 

[tall73]

You know they tried this once before, right? It was called Prohibition, and it was a resounding failure. With limited resources and technology, they made it bath tubs, imagine what they could do today.

Was it really a failure? Would you say more people were abstaining during that time? Sure, some made it in bath tubs etc. But anytime someone has to become a criminal to do something it WILL cause some to stop. And this is one that should be stopped.

I am more than willing to give it a second shot.

 

[StormyOne]

Was it really a failure? Would you say more people were abstaining during that time? Sure, some made it in bath tubs etc. But anytime someone has to become a criminal to do something it WILL cause some to stop. And this is one that should be stopped.

I am more than willing to give it a second shot.

Yes it was a failure just as the "war" on drugs is a failure... however the other point is this, when we look to the government to prohibit those things that we believe are bad for society, what happens when society believes you are bad for it, will you (collective generic you) then be banned?

 

[moicherie]

Yes it was a failure just as the "war" on drugs is a failure... however the other point is this, when we look to the government to prohibit those things that we believe are bad for society, what happens when society believes you are bad for it, will you (collective generic you) then be banned?

You mean what happens when the shoe is on the other foot, then we want to talk about our rights and freedoms being abused. But we have no problem abusing the rights of others. What next pass laws to enforce exercise and vegetarianism in the name of good health to reduce or eliminate obesity and all other health probelms? There is a path called good intentions and we all know where that leads to........

 

[tall73]

A. No it was not a failure. Use declined, some would even say OVERALL crime declined in the broader area of the country. The real problem was they dind't want the expense of enforcement, and had bad ideas in enforcement. They made the possession and use legal, but not the sale. Moreover, they missed the TAX REVENUE.

B. The organized crime did not stop after prohibition was repealed. It just moved to your afforementioned illegal drug market. So instead of people getting smuggled beer they get smuggled crack, and widely available beer.

Our pioneers had no problem with pushing temeperance. They were anti-slavery, anti-alcohol, anti-tobacco. EGW said to vote on the Sabbath if you have to for temperance.

The idea that we should not resist any moral ills is a misunderstanding of the Bible. We should promote the right. The Government clearly has a MORAL role, as outlined in Romans 13. It is ordained by God to punish the wrong-doer. And since we play a part in our government we should assist it in that role.


It is no double standard to fight against immorality, and also resist issues which limite religious liberty. The constitution itself makes provisions for religious liberty. It makes no provisions for immorality.

Morality SHOULD be, and always is legislated. Laws since the dawn of time have shown that. And what does it say about us when we have no desire to resist the ills of our day because we are afraid of persecution that we know will come anyway?

Are we "not only doing them, but approving of them who do so?" (Romans 1).

While we are in no wise to become involved in political questions, yet it is our privilege to take our stand decidedly on all questions relating to temperance reform. Concerning this I have often borne a plain testimony. In an article published in the Review of November 8, 1881, I wrote: "There is a cause for the moral paralysis upon society. Our laws sustain an evil which is sapping their very foundations. Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?...We talk of the results, tremble at the results, and wonder what we can do with the terrible results, while too often we tolerate and even sanction the cause. The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example--by voice and pen and vote--in favor of prohibition and total abstinence. --Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1914

 

[PaleHorse]

Again - all or none. That is my stance. To those that take any form of medication - their is no "wiggle room" - being that the medicine for "stomach sake" in my Bible said WINE. Not juice - but WINE. If it wanted to say JUICE it would have translated to JUICE. Celebrations at that time in the Bible didn't take place with JUICE, but with WINE. (I still don't get how in some areas of the Bible it is being said that WINE translated to unfermented JUICE; yet in other areas WINE is translated to plain ol' fermented WINE....)

I wonder how many SDA's will condemn someone to hell for a sip of WINE every now and then, yet will take a Tylenol for a headache every now and then.....

I have my understanding of the scripture. You have yours.
You have made your points, I in turn have made mine.

I can agree - to disagree on this point and let it go at that.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree - that is fine as wine (pun intended). But for me, I'm just not willing to accept an erred translation as the basis for truth. Unless we are willing to delve into the actual meanings of the original texts ('original' meaning the best copies that are available which are in the TR) then we are no more enlightened than those that did the translations.

BTW - the word 'juice' is only found once in the KJV Bible. Based on this am I to assume that this is the only time that juice was consumed? Were the people of the Bible all a bunch of whinos or is there a more accurate approach? In fact, the word translated to mean juice in that verse is `aciyc, and its definition reads as follows:
1) sweet wine, wine, pressed out juice

Here is the link. If we want to blindly follow what the translator's have provided us then we can assume that only alcoholic wine was consumed, that the the comma in Luke 23:43 is placed correctly and thus our view of the state of the dead is in error (since that is a strong contributing argument), and many others.

Yeah, we'll just agree to disagree.

In Christ,

 

[moicherie]

The danger is Tall there are areas of morality that infringe on another's right on issues that are not so black and white. For example abortion, the age of consent, adultery - a moral issue but not illegal (some Christians may want the state to make that a criminal offence to honor the sanctity of marriage), the gay issue - should a nation that does not have an official religion legislate on what 2 consenting adults do in their bedrooms no matter the gender? If the answer is yes how will that be policed in say 'Adventist land'?
Where does the desire for a moral nation start and an all out 'Christian' Theocracy end? History had one of those all those good Christians persecuting people who did not meet their morality. Hence some people decided to leave England and live on someone else 's continent...........

 

[tall73]

Abortion is hardly black and white. 30 years of propaganda has merely clouded the reality of killing life. You can call it a human, a potential human, etc. But it is still killing.

As to the variety of sexual issues, it is a democracy. If we want to make abortion illegal because it is immoral, why not?

And I have made a clear distinction on enforcing religious issues. I doubt too many protestants left England because they would not let them have an abortion or commit adultery.

You have not mentioned yet the danger that we allow wickedness to increase, making it harder for people to respond to the gospel. The government has a moral role. If you would like to dispute that, show me biblical evidence that it does not.

 

[moicherie]

I do not dispute the state has a moral role but who decides how far it goes? The thing about a democracy, its not perfect and the majority is not always right is it and we should know cos as Adventists we are the Sabbath observing minority. And if we were the majority what would we like to enforce under a political banner? As for the Protestants who left England religion and political issues were tied close together in those days. Some Christian brethern want to bring that attitude back. And where did Jesus say his disciples must enforce the state to be created in their image? Did you read Jesus trying to change the laws that were created under the Roman state becasue He considered them immoral?

 

[moicherie]

Abortion is hardly black and white. 30 years of propaganda has merely clouded the reality of killing life. You can call it a human, a potential human, etc. But it is still killing.

As to the variety of sexual issues, it is a democracy. If we want to make abortion illegal because it is immoral, why not?

And I have made a clear distinction on enforcing religious issues. I doubt too many protestants left England because they would not let them have an abortion or commit adultery.

You have not mentioned yet the danger that we allow wickedness to increase, making it harder for people to respond to the gospel. The government has a moral role. If you would like to dispute that, show me biblical evidence that it does not.

You said Abortion is hardly black and white same thing I wrote unless you mistyped.

 

[moicherie]

As for the abortion issue all those 'good Christians' bombing clinics shooting doctors all in the name of saving a life. If it weren't so sad it would be funny. I wonder if they know what irony is???

 

[HoneyDew]

As for the abortion issue all those 'good Christians' bombing clinics shooting doctors all in the name of saving a life. If it weren't so sad it would be funny. I wonder if they know what irony is???

Too bad they are not "suicide" bombers. The first time one did that would be the last time for him (obviously) and others thinking along those lines. I don't think Americans have the fervor and drive to blow themselves up as well. Wusses.

 

[BondGirl]

1st - how do we know or discern which translations are "erred" and which are right? Do we allow the translation of one thing to be "okay" and then that of another to be "erred"? If so, then who is the "Chief Decider" on these issues?

2nd - how did the discussion go from wine to abortion?

Jes curious....

 

[Roustalski]

Roustalski, try to bear in mind that only the Holy Spirit is able to open your fiance's understanding so that she can see what the Lord desires for her. Show her that you care by being a good example to her and respecting her. She is an adult do not opt to treat her like your child.

Keep her in your prayers rather then lecturing her each time you get more info on any subject the two of you do not agree on. God does not try to guilt trip us into doing His will, nor does He try scare tactics to get us to do His will. Show her that you love and respects her right to make her own choices. It is so important that we respect the choices that other adults make even when we do not agree with those choices personally. That is also an example that Jesus lived.

Peace

I wish I would have read this before I did bring up the issue again with "more info." Yea, we are over it now, and basically I've given in and am doing as you suggested. I've told her I don't "care" if she drinks, and I didn't say it in a tone saying, well you better not, type of situation.

Who knows, if it isn't really wrong, maybe I should give it a try? I can't even stand the smell of beer though, so that is doubtful...

 

[tall73]

A. there was supposed to be a question mark after black and white.

B. No Jesus didn't change the government--but then it was a dictatorship. But we have a democracy, so why should we not use our vote? Are we to ignore all morality just so we don't get persecuted in the end? When we alread know that persecution will happen anyway.

C. As to translations, biblical usage to me is the key factor. There are many texts where it is quite plain what it means. So when the one instance is unclear it can be clarified by the other usage.

D. People who bomb clinincs have little to do with Christians who vote to uphold the moral role of government.

E. I see no reason to let millions of babies to die because I am worried about hypocrites who bomb buildings, or about imposing my morality. Do you think if Jesus could have helped end the killing of babies by voting he wouldn't?

 

[PaleHorse]

1st - how do we know or discern which translations are "erred" and which are right? Do we allow the translation of one thing to be "okay" and then that of another to be "erred"? If so, then who is the "Chief Decider" on these issues?

2nd - how did the discussion go from wine to abortion?

Jes curious....

Well, I can't help ya with question #2 since I don't see the connection either. But as for #1 there is much we can do; and the starting point is simply this:
If you find something in a verse (or a couple of them) that seem they are out of place along-side the other verses of the same topic then very likely there is a problem in the translation. At this point the reader has a few options depending on how deeply they want to delve into the issue:
1) Verify the context of the verse.
2) Compare the verse(s) in question against other translations; many times this will resolve the problem. Let's say that the translation you normally read from is the KJV, a good translation to do the comparison against might be either the ESV (primarily), possibly the YLT, WEB, and the BBE.
3) Check out the verse in question against a few lexicons - that way you can see the original words and the various translations given for each word. Many times this will solve any apparent discrepecies. Word of caution; don't rely on just one lexicon, dictionary, or concordance. Use as many as you can get your hands on so that you aren't being limited by the producers of one. Also remember, it is just as important to note how a word is NOT defined as how it IS defined.

Who is the "Chief Decider"? You are. Apply the rules of hermeneutics, check out some of the commentaries, but most importantly allow the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth.

Not all translations are bad, but all translations have a bit of error in them.

 

[Seraph1m]

I wish I would have read this before I did bring up the issue again with "more info." Yea, we are over it now, and basically I've given in and am doing as you suggested. I've told her I don't "care" if she drinks, and I didn't say it in a tone saying, well you better not, type of situation.

Who knows, if it isn't really wrong, maybe I should give it a try? I can't even stand the smell of beer though, so that is doubtful...

To funny.