Christians: Bible commands on substances?

[lord of the mark]

as info: all anti-alcohol stuff in the Hebrew scriptures is taken from Proverbs, which in Judaism is NOT considered a legal text. Jewish law is all derived from the five books of Moses. Other books can be used as an aide to interpretation, but so can ancient rabbinic opinions and customs, traditionally held to have been passed down orally from Moses.

Whihc is why there is NO ban on alcohol in Judaism, though plenty of social taboos against drunkeness.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus was against the Jewish practice of avoiding Kosher food? So is my rabbi.

Lord of the Mark:

He's against putting dietary restrictions above moral conduct.

My earlier point should read:
"the Jewish practice of eating Kosher food."

I edited the sentence, and forgot to edit the first half as well as the second half.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Lord of the Mark:

He's against putting dietary restrictions above moral conduct.

My earlier point should read:
"the Jewish practice of eating Kosher food."

I edited the sentence, and forgot to edit the first half as well as the second half.

actually i recall that the verse in question referred not to kashrut, but to issues involving eating untithed produce and the like which were a big issue at the time, for more so than the laws of kashrut. ANd of course he doesnt say you should stop obeying ANY of those laws, merely that what you say is more important. Of course Judaism is very concerned with the moral damage we do by speech (loshon hara - the evil tongue) as well as other moral issues.

And you must mean "jewish practice of avoiding non-kosher food" - after all alomst everyone eats kosher food, at least occassionally.

[Berzerker]

Boris - Nah, but there are fundie explanations for the water = wine thing that make sense, but turn a "miracle" into an act of reform. They just happen to dismiss that the miracles performed by Jesus may all have been acts of reform since the water into wine was not a miracle.

Obiwan -

Oi. You knew what I meant.

Correct. Booze is not intrinsically evil. I like your illustration with drinking and falling asleep. However, you can't count on falling asleep all the time when you get drunk.

Nor can I count on streaking every time I get drunk. But what's your take on the wedding at Cana? Some fundies claim it was merely an act of reform dealing with a power struggle between the elite priesthood and Jesus' attempt to give the common man more power. If that's the case, then no miracle happened and that raises the spector that other miracles were acts of reform too and not actual miracles. But if the miracle happened, then Jesus did provide a big batch of wine to a group of partyers who were already getting drunk. There appears a contradiction between what Paul said and what Jesus did.

Nope. This is more for behavior between brothers and sisters in Christ. Unless Christians legislated belief, then these exhortations could not be enforced.

That's the problem I see with many Christians though, they want their religious beliefs legislated sometimes when it suits them, but not with any consistency, i.e., when it doesn't suit them.

The Romans and Pharisee's didn't think so.

Can't speak for the Pharisees, but the Romans were hardly boring. To them, Paul was a stick in the mud. I've read a commentary about the relationship between the Pharisees (the lawers) and Jesus that indicates they weren't really enemies, but that both were at odds with the Sadducees, the religious or priestly branch. There are a few passages where Jesus pokes fun at one of his disciples for his line of work, the tax collector I believe. But if we didn't know it was his disciple, we'd get the impression Jesus thought poorly of him just as with the Pharisees.

Yes, he would. The question becomes did Jesus get people drunk at Cana?

John 2:9-10

They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

[quote]At first glance, this passage seems to say so. The partygoers have been drinking, as they have finished the wine provided. If Jesus fulfilled the usual example, he would have supplied cheap wine that made people drunk.

But Jesus chose not to follow the usual example. Your question above assumes that Jesus turned the water into wine. If you accept this, what does this mean? Jesus used this opportunity to help show his mother, and the partygoers his divinity. The transformation of the wine would be the first miracle performed by Jesus.

If one assumes Jesus is Lord, could he not make 'good' wine that people could not get drunk upon? Clearly the bridegroom felt the wine of Jesus was the best wine of the evening.[quote]

So where in the passage does it say Jesus gave them a non-alcoholic wine? The man sampling the wine sure didn't give any indication they were getting grape juice. The people were getting drunk and Jesus said nothing to them about their behavior either. You see, you've put an interpretation on the story that is unsupported by the story itself. Why? Is it so important that Jesus fit into a box surrounded by your view of morality? Isn't it possible that Jesus didn't think getting drunk on special occasions wasn't the worst thing a person could do?
We disagree on Paul, you think he spoke for Jesus, and I think he went off the deep end on occasion effectively creating his own religion.

No contradiction. Note the qualifier Paul employs, 'little wine.'

Timothy had stomach problems, as Paul indicates in your quote. At that time water could not be purified to the same extent it is today. Therefore water-born parasites could cause the symptoms attributed to Timothy.

But that is a contradiction, in the other passages Paul is warning against any use of wine, but in that one, a little wine is okay. And Paul didn't tell him to stop drinking water, but to add wine to his diet. I think there is a problem interpreting verses, e.g., Paul says it is not good for a man to touch (have sex) a woman. Well, just how did Paul think the species procreates? Maybe he wasn't saying sex was bad, but it was for his intended audience. Maybe he was talking to priests, and not everyone. He also says that because it is not good for a man to touch a woman, marriage is allowed to reduce sexual immorality. Was that meant for priests too? And if it's bad for men and woman to have sex, why is marriage an improvement when marriage includes sex? We have to remember that sometimes Paul was talking to specific people and groups about how they, and only they, should conduct themselves. Btw, notice how the verses from proverbs says it's okay for those - the masses - who are troubled to drink booze so they can live with their misery? Is that not a contradiction of Paul?

Big Crunch -

There is an interesting bit in the Genesis about how Noah was buggered by one of his sons after getting drunk. The moral, don't get drunk.

I would think the moral is don't rape others, but I believe it was Noah's wife Ham had sex with. But who did God curse after that incident? Noah or Ham? It was Ham (and his descendants)who was cursed by God, not a word to Noah about his behavior.

[Berzerker]

Felch -

He probably wasn't smoking anything. I'd say hallucinogenic mushrooms are more likely the cause.

Hehe, there is an author who claims hallucinogenic shrooms played a big part of the Jewish religion. He showed how the priestly dress mimics in amazing detail a certain kind of shroom indigenous to that region.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

Paul is warning against any use of wine,

Read my earlier posts. Paul warns against wine when used to excess, or intoxication. Nowhere does he proscribe all drinking of wine.

To them, Paul was a stick in the mud.

But a very dangerous stuck in the mud. Hence, the

That's the problem I see with many Christians though, they want their religious beliefs legislated sometimes when it suits them, but not with any consistency, i.e., when it doesn't suit them.

Christianity is not meant to be legislated. Much of the church discipline or rules of behavior should not be enforced legally. It's a concern among Christians as well.

So where in the passage does it say Jesus gave them a non-alcoholic wine?

Confine your quote boxes, please. Are these your words? They are not mine.

See monolith's post. If Jesus can turn water into wine, why can't he make a wine that does not get you drunk?

Is it so important that Jesus fit into a box surrounded by your view of morality? Isn't it possible that Jesus didn't think getting drunk on special occasions wasn't the worst thing a person could do?

He's sinless. That's the way it works. If drunkeness is a sin, then encouraging drunkeness will be as well. Your real problem is in seperating Paul from Jesus, where no such seperation exists.

You see, you've put an interpretation on the story that is unsupported by the story itself.

Do you believe Christ is Lord, berzerker?
Does the miracle of the wine proclaim his diety?
These are all within the account of John, if you read the entire chapter. I've based my interpretation of the passage on the diety of Christ, since you seemed to assume that in your question. If Christ is God, then he can give wine that does not make people drunk.

[Sava]

What does "God" tell you Berserker?

[Berzerker]

What does "God" tell you Berserker?

Liberals are evil.

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Read my earlier posts. Paul warns against wine when used to excess, or intoxication. Nowhere does he proscribe all drinking of wine.

That was the impression I got from this.

Applying this to drinking: some Christians are strong. They understand that light drinking, before the point of drunkeness is not sinful. Some Christians are weak in that they cannot drink without become attached to the wine, alcoholics, etc. The strong brother should always accede to the weak brother as Paul illustrates above.

Now, you did add that this light drinking might be allowed as long as it is done out of view of those who are weak, but that isn't feasible. Who can tell if another person will see you drinking wine and become an alcoholic? Wouldn't just having liquor stores around be enough to induce the weak into alcoholism?

Christianity is not meant to be legislated. Much of the church discipline or rules of behavior should not be enforced legally. It's a concern among Christians as well.

Will someone please tell Jerry Falwell and his minions?

Confine your quote boxes, please. Are these your words? They are not mine.

See monolith's post. If Jesus can turn water into wine, why can't he make a wine that does not get you drunk?

Is not a wine that doesn't cause intoxication a non-alcoholic wine? I don't see why you think those words are not yours. Can you identify something in the story about Cana to support your contention that the wine supplied by Jesus was non-alcoholic, i.e., didn't cause anyone to be drunk?

He's sinless. That's the way it works.

Why? Where in the NT did Jesus say he was without sin?

If drunkeness is a sin, then encouraging drunkeness will be as well. Your real problem is in seperating Paul from Jesus, where no such seperation exists.

Then Jesus wasn't sinless. Btw, I have no problem separating Paul from Jesus, I ignore Paul and read what Jesus said.

Do you believe Christ is Lord, berzerker?

Lord of what? The universe? Nope.

Does the miracle of the wine proclaim his diety?

I wasn't there to see it, but according to some fundies, like Bob Enyart, he didn't transform water into wine. The story is about reform.

These are all within the account of John, if you read the entire chapter. I've based my interpretation of the passage on the diety of Christ, since you seemed to assume that in your question. If Christ is God, then he can give wine that does not make people drunk.

And he can give people wine that does make them drunk. But that's why I said you are putting your interpretation on the story and have nothing to support your version. The man who tasted the wine only confirms the alcohol content of the wine by his comments about getting drunk. Wine tastes different than grape juice. Btw, where did Jesus claim to be God? Why did he repeatedly speak of God as his Father who sent him?

[Ben Kenobi]

why you think those words are not yours.

You quoted part of your response along with my earlier statement. I just wanted to clarify that you meant to say these things.

No point in attacking an argument you never meant to post.

Now, you did add that this light drinking might be allowed as long as it is done out of view of those who are weak, but that isn't feasible. Who can tell if another person will see you drinking wine and become an alcoholic? Wouldn't just having liquor stores around be enough to induce the weak into alcoholism?

Light drinking is fine so long as you do not knowingly drink in front of an alcoholic friend.

As for alcohol advertising, that is a seperate point. A better question would be, should liquor be advertised on television, given that it may tempt alcoholics to drink against their health?

I know there are restrictions, in that you cannot show people drinking, but I do not know enough about the effects television advertisements have on alcoholics. Any 'poly marketers out there?

The man who tasted the wine only confirms the alcohol content of the wine by his comments about getting drunk.

Not necessarily. He called the wine 'good' which can refer to many things other than alcohol content. Are the best wines necessarily the ones with the highest alcohol content?

Why? Where in the NT did Jesus say he was without sin?

Lord of what? The universe? Nope

I don't want to get too far off Zylka's topic, but here is one place to start.

Luke 23:40-43:

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[6] "

Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Also,

Hebrews 4:14-16

Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

[Japher]

Well, if wine is to symbolize the blood of christ, then that would put his blood alcohol content at around 12%, symboliclly!!

What is up with that!?

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

Light drinking is fine so long as you do not knowingly drink in front of an alcoholic friend.

What if your friend is weak and you don't know it and he proceeds to drink and becomes an alcoholic? Alcoholism is not as clearly defined as we might like, so a person can be a heavy drinker and still not be an alcoholic.

As for alcohol advertising, that is a seperate point. A better question would be, should liquor be advertised on television, given that it may tempt alcoholics to drink against their health?

Why just ads? Even seeing a liquor store is a temptation for the alcoholic.

Not necessarily. He called the wine 'good' which can refer to many things other than alcohol content. Are the best wines necessarily the ones with the highest alcohol content?

He said it was normal for the host to supply the good wine at first and after people became "well-drunk", then the inferior wine would come out. The guest said Jesus reversed the order, so obviously the guest is acting as if both batches are wine. Do you have actual evidence from the story to support your interpretation?

Luke 23:40-43:

That doesn't say Jesus was sinless, it says Jesus was underserving of the punishment being administered.

Hebrews 4:14-16

That doesn't say Jesus was sinless, it says in the opinion of the person speaking, he was without sin. I'm talking about a verse in which Jesus himself says he is sinless. Furthermore, the speaker says Jesus was without sin, but in reference to the series of temptations to which he was subjected. That's like saying Hercules was always successful because he passed the 12 tests of strength.

[Ben Kenobi]

What if your friend is weak and you don't know it and he proceeds to drink and becomes an alcoholic? Alcoholism is not as clearly defined as we might like, so a person can be a heavy drinker and still not be an alcoholic.

You did not know the state of your friend, you have not deliberately tempted. If drinking in front of your friend feels uncomfortable to you for whatever reason, you should listen to your conscience, and stop drinking. Otherwise, carry on.

Do you have actual evidence from the story to support your interpretation?

The story does not say that the revellers became drunk, so why do you assume that they did?

Even seeing a liquor store is a temptation for the alcoholic.

Liquor stores are less pervasive than beer commercials. Like I said, I don't know enough about the effects these have on alcholics.

That doesn't say Jesus was sinless, it says in the opinion of the person speaking, he was without sin.

Like I said, a starting point. Why might the writer, and the thief testify that Christ is sinless? The thief did not witness the trials of Christ, yet he testified that Jesus had done no wrong.

The actual case is much longer. I first have to show why Christ is Lord, and what it means if he is Lord, that sinlessness is one of the characteristics of God.

Do you want me to go through with this?

[Japher]

Liquor stores are less pervasive than beer commercials. Like I said, I don't know enough about the effects these have on alcholics.

Beer commercials are fine with me, but living down the street from the liquor store.... whew.

I am an alcoholic, I am also a functioning drunk (whatever that is). Yet, I must say that the access is much more tempting then the lure. I'm like a fish in a bowl, if I can see the bait on the outside of the bowl, I am not going to try and get it, but once it comes in I'm hooked.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Liberals are evil.

How interesting, Im Christian and God says the same thing about conservatives to me.