fccool Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think that in context of discussion "It's OK" would mean "It's permissible by God". I don't think that the context is benefit, but rather a taste. Just like a juicy steak is hardly beneficial if you frame it in context of alcohol, yet "it's OK" in context of freedom granted by God. There are people who will tell you all about the negative impact of eating steak likewise, but the fact remains... eating steak is OK, because that's the choice I'd make once in a while. It does not mean that I'd stuff myself, or that I eat steak exclusively. I do enjoy it once in a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 10, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 10, 2011 olger asked the original question but has not participated in the discussion. Presumably only he knows for sure what he meant by 'OK'. I focused on the Biblical issue because this is a Christian forum where members claim the Bible as their rule of conduct. On a secular forum I would have addressed the question differently. The 'no explicit Biblical prohibition of pot' argument is as silly as a 'no explicit Biblical prohibition of texting and driving' argument would be. The Bible writers did not know about marijuana, cell phones or cars. They did know about wine and did talk about it. And yet while explicitly prohibiting clothes blending two different kinds of fibres (check the labels in your clothes now!) did not explicitly prohibit drinking. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Gail Posted January 10, 2011 Administrators Share Posted January 10, 2011 Hey- I recently returned a DVD seminar because in it the pastor openly stated that he LIKES his beer and as long as he is not getting drunk he's not breaking any Biblical rule. Furthermore, he accused those of promoting abstinence (Christians) were legalists. Bravus, I agree with you that the Bible writers were familiar with wine. I reckon they were probably familiar with varying degrees of fermentation of juice in general given the tools they had to work with in food preservation. It reminds me of my mother who went through the depression... She used food items in varying degrees of freshness, and certainly she used items that I wouldn't. I do agree with the drunkenness admonitions in the Bible. To me, though, the other might be harder to promote BIBLICALLY, which is what you are zeroing in on, or trying to. Quote Isaiah 32:17 And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted January 10, 2011 Members Share Posted January 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: Bravus I agree. There'll be a blog post shortly, which I'll link here. I don't buy your paraphrase,Bravus. It is subjective at best and irrelevent to the discussion you've been participating in. Substitute the word Truth for the word Bible and you're making the same claim that you're accusing others of. And if your further allusions to SDA's being in the minority (in their interpretation of state-of -the-dead,Sabbath,ect...) proves anything it is merely that one of the two groups is wrong and one is right.Unless,of course, you fall into the same trap that you accuse some of the posters here of asserting. You can do better than that! I didn't know that Adventists did Electroconvulsive Therapy. Is it a new GC recommendation for members now that began the first of this new year? Quote Pam      Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Quote: The Bible writers did not know about marijuana, cell phones or cars. They did know about wine and did talk about it. And yet while explicitly prohibiting clothes blending two different kinds of fibres (check the labels in your clothes now!) did not explicitly prohibit drinking. Interesting point Bravus. (woody pondering) Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think that in context of discussion "It's OK" would mean "It's permissible by God". I don't think that the context is benefit, but rather a taste. Just like a juicy steak is hardly beneficial if you frame it in context of alcohol, yet "it's OK" in context of freedom granted by God. There are people who will tell you all about the negative impact of eating steak likewise, but the fact remains... eating steak is OK, because that's the choice I'd make once in a while. It does not mean that I'd stuff myself, or that I eat steak exclusively. I do enjoy it once in a while. If the Bible writers wrote that it was not fit for kings to eat steak, or forbid the priests from eating it, or if scientific studies showed that even eating a small steak occasionally could cause ulcers, or demonstrated that a significant % of those who ate steak eventually developed obesity,would you still ignore it all and say it was ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 olger asked the original question but has not participated in the discussion. Presumably only he knows for sure what he meant by 'OK'. I focused on the Biblical issue because this is a Christian forum where members claim the Bible as their rule of conduct. On a secular forum I would have addressed the question differently. The 'no explicit Biblical prohibition of pot' argument is as silly as a 'no explicit Biblical prohibition of texting and driving' argument would be. The Bible writers did not know about marijuana, cell phones or cars. They did know about wine and did talk about it. And yet while explicitly prohibiting clothes blending two different kinds of fibres (check the labels in your clothes now!) did not explicitly prohibit drinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 11, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 11, 2011 None. Edit: Polygamy is actually the perfect parallel. It's not a great idea. It's arguably not God's ideal. It's prohibited for particular classes of people (deacons). And yet nowhere is it directly prohibited for everyone, and in some places the Bible actually requires it. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Gerry, But it really becomes "guns don't kill people" issue. I can make the same argument about gun ownership as you are making about alcohol. I'm just wondering when the last time was that you saw a gunaholic, unable to make the decision not to use a gun. God blesses! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080618021205AA5QeLu http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?1877-I-feel-the-gun-addiction-coming-on...... You can get addicted to just about anything. There are people who can't stop themselves from shopping and getting in debt, and are sent to get some serious help. Is the problem with shopping, or self-control? You can get addicted to this forum, or facebook in a very detrimental matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You can get addicted to just about anything. STRAWMAN ALERT!!!! Alcoholism is not comparable to an "addiction" to shopping or surfing the web. Alcohol is physically addictive. Alcoholics go through physical withdraws when quitting which can include delusions and normally requires hospitalization. Furthermore, alcoholism is a mental illness which is manifested by an obsession to drink. Even after the physical addiction is broken the mental obsession normally leads the alcoholic back to drink again. Alcoholism isn't some little pesky habit that one needs to kick like shopping or surfing the web. It is bad. Real bad. It is cunning, baffling and powerful. The vast majority of alcoholics die drunk. They never recover. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricket Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 All addictions alter the chemistry of the brain; some addictions alter more than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 STRAWMAN ALERT!!!! Shane, why do you notice the Strawman in this case, and choose to ignore it when people throw around "Well, if alcohol is ok, does it mean that drugs are ok?" arguments? When you are talking about alcoholism you are actually creating a Strawman argument when light-moderate drinking is discussed. I think you should practice what you preach :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Shane, why do you notice the Strawman in this case, and choose to ignore it when people throw around "Well, if alcohol is ok, does it mean that drugs are ok?" arguments? Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 All addictions alter the chemistry of the brain; some addictions alter more than others. Of course. Any habit will create neurological paths in the brain. Even taking the same route to work each day will create such paths. I think the term "addiction" can be used a little too causally. Of course that is just my opinion. When we put chemicals into our body that become physically addictive, those neurological paths tend to create addiction issues much greater than just taking the same route to work every day. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted January 11, 2011 Moderators Share Posted January 11, 2011 Quote: This is a good point. I agree that the "if alcohol is OK, drugs are OK" argument is also a strawman. Why? Simple, one can use alcohol without getting drunk. I am not aware of anyone using marijuana or cocaine without getting high. Correct me if I am wrong. Don't most ETOH drinkers do so for that "buzz" effect on the brain? Like the "buzz" they get from pot or coke? The wrecked lives I've seen are no imaginary strawmen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted January 12, 2011 Members Share Posted January 12, 2011 I am not aware of anyone using marijuana without getting high. Correct me if I am wrong. Not correcting you but just letting you know there are those or at least one I know of. While in the army there was this guy that could smoke a joint and he never got high. It never effected him one iota. Than there were some that just smelling the aroma and they got high, didn't need to pay but got the benefit of the high, that's if you want to consider it a benefit, which I don't. Quote phkrause Obstinacy is a barrier to all improvement. - ChL 60 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Quote: Moderate drinking is much like playing Russian roulette. In the US we know that 10% of the population is alcoholic and 60% of the population drinks. Rough math tells us that 1 out of every six drinkers is alcoholic. Shane ... there's a connection between sugar consumption and diabetes, yet it does not make sugar to be effectively dangerous substance in proper quantities. For me to compare alcohol addiction to sugar addiction is as much of a fallacy as it would be for you to deduce that because there are alcoholics, mild consumption is not acceptable. The way you look at the stats about highly addictive substance... 5 out of 6 are not addicted apparently. What's the matter there? If it's so addictive, why are those 5 people turn out to do just fine? That's the nature of such arguments, it reduces complex factors and reasons in order to make a case against "the problem". The real problem is not alcohol. The real problem is discipline and self-control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Shane ... there's a connection between sugar consumption and diabetes, yet it does not make sugar to be effectively dangerous substance in proper quantities. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Shane, Please re-read the last two paragraph to understand what you are really saying here. It takes as much self-discipline to practice abstinence, as it would take to stop after one glass of wine. I get it... there are people who won't be able to. Yet, once again, it's not a problem of alcohol. It's a problem of self-control. I can guarantee you that there are people who enjoy a glass of wine three times a week and they benefit from taste and understand that going too far will harm them. It's not much different than mentality of abstinence. People get hammered are there to get hammered. These are the types of people who end up in rehab. If not for alcohol, they'd find some other form of relaxation and escape. Let's compare apples and apples when constructing an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 For the non-alcoholic, it doesn't take self-discipline or self-control to practice abstinence. Abstaining from alcohol for the non-alcoholic is no different than abstaining from soda pop or fried chicken. It is just a simple matter of making every day choices that we all make based on taste and preference. The problem is alcohol. Alcohol is cunning, baffling and powerful. It sneaks up on most alcoholics. They start out as moderate users and when they don't know what happened to them they discover they can't live with it and can't live without it. They becoming walking dead. Some end it all in suicide. It is a risky and dangerous game to play. In the context, Proverbs 20:1 makes a lot of sense. "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whoever is deceived thereby is not wise." I agree with Bravus' understanding of the verse. It isn't telling us not to drink, it is warning us of the deceptiveness of alcohol. My suggestion for non-Adventists that drink is to never get drunk - that includes tipsy. That means no more than one drink per hour. If they can't limit themselves to that, they need not to drink at all. For Adventists, well... we are living in the anti-typical Day of Atonement and shouldn't be drinking at all. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Quote: The problem is alcohol. Alcohol is cunning, baffling and powerful. It sneaks up on most alcoholics. They start out as moderate users and when they don't know what happened to them they discover they can't live with it and can't live without it. They becoming walking dead. Some end it all in suicide. By phrasing it in such way you make it seem as though the alcoholics have nothing to do with their addiction. Alcohol is to blame. One again, it makes no sense in context of people using it without getting addicted. It's very much like saying that "guns are killing people". It makes no difference in this case, because we take an inanimate object that has to be moves in some way by a person who has the power to move it... and then blaming the inanimate object for person's actions. That's what you end up doing. Alcoholics are both victims, and agressors. I.E. They are victims of their own demise. They are the ones who pour that stuff and drink it to EXCESS. You can't make an honest case that what Bravus does (1-2 cans of beer here and now) will make a person alcoholic. Hence it's common to jump to extremes and build a strawman in order to build a theological dogma based on extremes. Then this dogma is used to demonize other people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug yowell Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Shane I am not aware of anyone using marijuana without getting high. Correct me if I am wrong. Not correcting you but just letting you know there are those or at least one I know of. While in the army there was this guy that could smoke a joint and he never got high. It never effected him one iota. Than there were some that just smelling the aroma and they got high, didn't need to pay but got the benefit of the high, that's if you want to consider it a benefit, which I don't. There is the smoker that can take a couple of hits just to be sociable and stop before they got a buzz. In my day(the nature of pot may have significantly changed since)this kind of thing was not uncommon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 But it really becomes "guns don't kill people" issue. I can make the same argument about gun ownership as you are making about alcohol. No you can't. Guns can't influence you to do anything. Alcohol does! I've done all kinds of things under the influence of alcohol. I've never been under the influence of a gun, and I've owned guns all my life. Most gun crimes occur when someone is under the influence of alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.