Is it ok to drink alcohol...?

[Bravus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you also do not believe we should embrace the affliction of our souls because of this being the anti-typical Day of Atonement, nor do you believe we should give ear to the instruction given to us through God's end-time prophet.

'Affliction of our souls' is not a Biblical concept - or at least, confusing it with affliction of our bodies isn't. Affiction of our souls is prayer and Bible study and eagerly seeking God's face, it is not bodily asceticism.

As for 'God's end-time prophet', that's a whole other can of worms I've been trying to avoid opening in this thread. The short version is that she was given prophecies for the church, but she also wrote much 'off her own bat', and some of it is plain factually wrong. It requires a lot of work and study to discern which is which, and that involves searching the Scriptures and testing what she says against the Scriptures. But since the Scriptures are the standard, I prefer to go straight to the source.

[John317]

There are millions of people who stop drinking once they fully accept Christ, just as they stop smoking, without being told to. Why? Because as they read the Bible, they are convicted by the Holy Spirit. They don't wait for a verse that says, "You shall never drink any alcohol." They don't need to be shown a verse that says, "You shall not smoke or look at porn," etc.

The Bible is plain on these things, just as it is on the Sabbath and the state of the dead, yet there are people who still want more evidence and even certain kinds of evidence, while the evidence of how God thinks about those things is staring them in the face.

Here are some verses that tell us the reason that some people decide one thing and some decide another. It is not because of worldly wisdom or information or education. It has everything to do with attitude, relationship with Christ, and dependence on the Holy Spirit:

John 7:17

If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

Jude 1:20

But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit;

John 8:31-32

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, [32] and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

John 8:47

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.

1 John 4:6

We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

John 10:26-27

but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. [27] My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

Daniel 12:10

Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand.

[Guest]

Amen John! Excellent post.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

-deleted-

[Bravus]

I agree. There'll be a blog post shortly, which I'll link here.

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2193

[Woody]

Excellent Blog Bravus. It says what needs to be said.

[Dr. Shane]

'Affliction of our souls' is not a Biblical concept - or at least, confusing it with affliction of our bodies isn't. Affliction of our souls is prayer and Bible study and eagerly seeking God's face, it is not bodily asceticism.

[doug yowell]

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!

[doug yowell]

Excellent Blog Bravus. It says what needs to be said.

Which was what,Woody?

[fccool]

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 think it should be made clear that the original argument made by Bravus was not "Drinking alcohol is fine", or that "One can safely use it in small amounts". The original argument revolved around the idea that Bible leaves room for freedom of choice in such matter... without directly calling consumption a sin.

You try to re-frame the argument in such a way which implies that ANY consumption of alcohol IS A SIN.

It's done by slippery slope assumptions... i.e. alcohol WILL lead to problems in ANY CASE, no iffs, butts.

It's done by straw men arguments ... if little alcohol is ok, then little cocaine and little dope is likewise ok.

It's done by assuming that Bible equates consumption of alcohol with drunkenness. I don't think I have to bring up any examples. Just go back a couple of pages and see what I'm taliking about.

It's done by setting a double-standard of what it means to be the "last day Christian set aside by God for a special purpose" . I.E. Such Christians would not even touch alcohol, never mind tasting it.

Such argument sets the standards of perfection that it does not live up to...i.e. It succeeds in one area, but it fails miserably in other... but it chooses to concentrate on the "areas of success" in order to appear more holy and "Of God".

[Bravus]

I don't buy your paraphrase,Bravus. It is subjective at best and irrelevent to the discussion you've been participating in.

I was making a broader point than this discussion about alcohol - my point was in relation to the quoted words and texts. My paraphrase is accurate *unless* you wish to remove the words 'my interpretation of the Bible' and replace it with 'what the Bible actually says'. That's the unexamined assumption that trips up so many here. They refuse to see or acknowledge that there's an extra step - the one in parentheses: 'God said it, (I, or my pastor or... interpreted it), I believe it, that finishes it.'

Delighted to hear your alternative paraphrase of the quoted material, though.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Substitute the word Truth for the word Bible and you're making the same claim that you're accusing others of.

Nope. I am not claiming that those who differ from me are not of God. At very strongest I'm claiming that they are thinking with unexamined assumptions. That's a very different thing.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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.

Logically, no it doesn't: both groups could be wrong. The Muslims might have it right worshipping on Friday and the Hindus might have it right about reincarnation. I don't think they do, but your proposition fails the logic test. My point was not about the correctness of doctrines, however, it was about the logical implications of assuming that doctrinal differences mean those holding different doctrines are not of God. God is bigger than that.

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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 don't think so. Again, it's not about doctrinal correctness, it's about doctrinal disagreement being used to diagnose the spiritual health of others... and about the implication that those who disagree on doctrine do so because they are not of God.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Again, it's not about doctrinal correctness, it's about doctrinal disagreement being used to diagnose the spiritual health of others... and about the implication that those who disagree on doctrine do so because they are not of God.

Exactly.

[Dr. Shane]

both groups could be wrong. The Muslims might have it right worshiping on Friday and the Hindus might have it right about reincarnation. I don't think they do, but your proposition fails the logic test. My point was not about the correctness of doctrines, however, it was about the logical implications of assuming that doctrinal differences mean those holding different doctrines are not of God. God is bigger than that.

I must agree with Bravus here. Christians tend to embrace exclusivity although Adventists tend to be more inclusive than other Christian denominations. Our concept of God and understanding of truth is based on many things which include our experience, education, personality and intellect. Since each of us admit we are sinful creatures, it is rather difficult for us to assert with certainty that we are right and others are wrong.

I share my faith by stating, this is what I am convicted of and this is why?

[LifeHiscost]

Since each of us admit we are sinful creatures, it is rather difficult for us to assert with certainty that we are right and others are wrong.

I share my faith by stating, this is what I am convicted of and this is why?

I trust Jesus to fulfill His promise to those He wishes to reach.

"You didn’t choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name."

John 15:16 NLT

God is not so insufficient that He is unable to work around the enemy of souls in order to reach those who He knows are in earnest about reaching Him, to give them the clear information necessary to fulfill this promise below.

"Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” "John 8:31,32 NKJV

"Jesus told him, “I am....the truth.... No one can come to the Father except through me.

John 14:5"

One need not "prove" anyone wrong about what is Truth. It is only necessary for the disciple of Christ to share what he/she has been taught from the Word, by the Holy Spirit. The heart that abides with Christ can rest in a knowledge of the Truth and let the heart of others accept or reject according to their willingness to submit to the Master when the shared message is consistent with the Word.

"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it."Isaiah 55:11 NKJV

God blesses!

[LifeHiscost]

Amen John! Excellent post.#418816 - Yesterday at 20:49

God blesses!

[Gerr]

And that's why I put a straw man argument there, because you make up a straw man of drug consumption and make it out to be the same as alcohol consumption... and for the same reasons.

Do you know of any pot or coke users who do it for taste?

Strawman? Why don't you answer my question? If you consume a dangerous drug albeit "responsibly" or "moderately", what can you say to a Christian who wants to do the same with speed, pot, heroin, LSD, or coke? How different is ETOH from these other drugs? If you can argue for moderate use of ETOH because the Bible does not absolutely prohibit its use inspite of all the negative things it has to say about it, how can you argue against the use of other drugs?

No, I have not known many people using these substances, period, much less for taste. I've only seen the wreckage done by taste gone awry. All the people I've known who use alcohol do it for the "buzz".

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Do you know of any pot or coke users who do it for taste?

Heck yes! I used to be a connoisseur of good tasting pot, and knew many more who were also. They wouldn't let a ciggarette touch their lips, if their life depended on it.

I always thought peruvian flake tasted good too.

Thanks for that testimony, Richard. My contact with drug users has been limited to the wreckage victims of taste gone awry.

My personal experience with drugs are limited. My first two tries with tobacco on two different occasions separated by a few years made me very sick (dizzy and nauseated). I'd rather suffer pain than dizziness. So I never tried it again. I had two Aunts who would take a little drink after a hard day's work. I took a swallow of their gin one time or maybe it was vodka, and it burned from the time it hit my mouth all the way down. Never touched it again. Narcotics? They make me sick!

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Guys, when there are people that will argue against something that is explicitly enjoined, how then can you convince someone to abstain from something where there is no explicit or absolute Biblical prohibition?

Explicitly enjoined where. *Still* waiting on that evidence that everyone keeps assuming but no-one is providing.

I was not referring to alcohol avoidance as the one being specifically enjoined. Example of what I had in mind: The RCC & Eastern Churches find ways to circumvent the 2nd commandment, as do Protestants with the 4th. I had previously stated already that I agreed with you that there is no explicit statement in Scripture prohibiting the use of alcohol, while it condemns drunkenness.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Until the Holy Spirit convinces one otherwise, those who see no harm and think they can handle a little alcohol responsibly will continue to do so. I wonder though how they would approach or deal with those who think they could also responsibly and moderately use pot or coke or heroin?

I hesitate to embark on this, because people have shown that they *don't read what is written*, and are going to accuse me of promoting drug use. *I'm not* promoting drug use, but I am, once again, defending the truth.

There are many people who use low levels of marijuana consistently over many years with no significant ill effects. Yes, some use too much and experience ill effects, and yes, some go on to harder drugs. But it is simply untrue to say that there is no such thing as safe, moderate use of marijuana. Particularly if it's consumed in some way other than smoking, since the smoking itself has its own irritant effects on the lungs that are well understood.

Cocaine used to be used as a dental anaesthetic. It also used to be an ingredient in Coca-Cola, hence the name. There are better, safer, less addictive anaesthetics available now, and SDAs don't drink Coke so it's a moot point, but again, although cocaine is addictive (while, for those without addictive personalities, alcohol is not, therefore this is a bit of a false parallel in the alcohol thread), it could be argued that it is possible to have safe moderate use of cocaine. Because it *is* addictive, it's far more dangerous to try for than safe moderate use of alcohol - but it's possible.

The issues with heroin are the same: it's addictive, so not a really fair parallel for discussion of alcohol, but it was invented as a painkiller and has a role there. Except for the War On Drugs hysteria it would probably still be used at least in palliative care for extreme pain. Hard to claim safe moderate use both because it is highly addictive and because its use is so pleasurable.

There are the added issues, of course, that street drugs are typically filthy and cut with who knows what and of variable potency, and criminalised so they have legal consequences and involve dealing with unsavoury characters and so on.

And, despite the 'satire' here, all of these drugs are consumed solely for their intoxicating effects, not at all for the pleasure of tasting them.

So, three issues:

1. It's not Biblical evidence, which is all we're really talking about

2. The parallels are false for a number of reasons

3. It is simply untrue that there is no safe, moderate use possible with some of these substances - if they were available clean, easy, cheap and so on

I very strongly believe all these substances should be avoided. But again, I believe stretching the truth in order to make laudable cases should also be avoided.

I am not disputing your point that there is no absolute Biblical prohiubition for moderate use of alcohol. The point I was trying to make on my tag-on post is: As a mioderate alcohol user, what kind of witness would you have vis-a-vis people who claim "moderate" or "recreational" use of other substances?

[Woody]

Quote:

My personal experience with drugs are limited. My first two tries with tobacco on two different occasions separated by a few years made me very sick (dizzy and nauseated). I'd rather suffer pain than dizziness. So I never tried it again. I had two Aunts who would take a little drink after a hard day's work. I took a swallow of their gin one time or maybe it was vodka, and it burned from the time it hit my mouth all the way down. Never touched it again. Narcotics? They make me sick!

What would be your response if you actually enjoyed these vices?

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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 think it should be made clear that the original argument made by Bravus was not "Drinking alcohol is fine", or that "One can safely use it in small amounts". The original argument revolved around the idea that Bible leaves room for freedom of choice in such matter... without directly calling consumption a sin.

Well said. I agree with your assessment.

Quote:

You try to re-frame the argument in such a way which implies that ANY consumption of alcohol IS A SIN.

It's done by slippery slope assumptions... i.e. alcohol WILL lead to problems in ANY CASE, no iffs, butts.

It's done by straw men arguments ... if little alcohol is ok, then little cocaine and little dope is likewise ok.

While I don't believe that everytime I took a sip of wine I'd be sinning, I think it's fallacious argument to disccount slippery slopes. It is precisely because too many people try to get as close to the precipice as they think they can get away with or the slippery slope that too many find their lives a wreck. Not everyone who smokes get lung cancer. Not everyone who drinks wine beccome an alcoholic. But what can you say to those who thought they could use these substances safely and end up wrecking their lives & that of OTHERS?These ARE NOT STRAWMEN, they are very REAL lives that are destroyed by what seemed to them like innocent & safe use.

[Gerr]

Quote:

My personal experience with drugs are limited. My first two tries with tobacco on two different occasions separated by a few years made me very sick (dizzy and nauseated). I'd rather suffer pain than dizziness. So I never tried it again. I had two Aunts who would take a little drink after a hard day's work. I took a swallow of their gin one time or maybe it was vodka, and it burned from the time it hit my mouth all the way down. Never touched it again. Narcotics? They make me sick!

What would be your response if you actually enjoyed these vices?

Arguing from the point that there is no absolute Scriptural prohibition against it, then chances are I would probably continue the vice until the Holy Spirit convicts me to discontinue it.

[fccool]

Quote:

But what can you say to those who thought they could use these substances safely and end up wrecking their lives & that of OTHERS?These ARE NOT STRAWMEN, they are very REAL lives that are destroyed by what seemed to them like innocent & safe use

Gerry,

I'm well aware that alcohol is perhaps the poison of choice in our society. Its consumption is hardly comparable to any other drugs used. 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. Responsibility rests on user. I certainly would not put guns in irresponsible hands... likewise I would not do it with alcohol.

And that's my point about Strawmen. I'm not attacking the validity of real people whose lives are destroyed by use of alcohol. Yet, I can likewise show you plenty of people for who such is not the case. That's why, instead of it being an issue of the "poster child example", we should stick to the arguments ... instead of strawmen fallacies.

I'm critiquing logic of the argument in such case, not your intent.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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 think it should be made clear that the original argument made by Bravus was not "Drinking alcohol is fine", or that "One can safely use it in small amounts". The original argument revolved around the idea that Bible leaves room for freedom of choice in such matter... without directly calling consumption a sin.

You try to re-frame the argument in such a way which implies that ANY consumption of alcohol IS A SIN.

I believe your perception is wrong. The thread reads "Is it OK to drink alcohol?" ,not, "Is it a sin to drink alcohol?" I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the ok was tied to what the Bible teaches about alcohol and it's effects on people. Despite what has been claimed no one has made a Biblical case that the Bible teaches that it is ok (harmless,permissable,what?)to drink if done in moderation.The defense of that position has been done mainly by appealing to the Bible's lack of definite prohibition.Could not the same question be asked "Is it ok to smoke dope?" Even if the Bible did leave room for choice on the matter it does not automatically indicate that it is ok to drink anymore than the Bible's failure to categorically prohibit polygamy indicates that it is ok to have more than one wife. Even Bravus (without Biblical proof) has claimed that total abstinence is safer,better,ect... so why does it then follow that even though abstinence is better it is still ok to ignore what one knows is best in order to do what one knows to be the greater risk?If anyone is reframing the argument it is not me.If I,or any Christian, SDA or not(seems like only SDA's are accused of being unbiblical on this one),believes that the Bible warns of the inherent dangers of alcohol use,a belief that is inferred by statements which admit that abstinence is "better",asking them to teach that better is irrelevent seems rather cynical.If ok is equated with permission but not good, then it raises the more important question of why it is ok to do something that is not good or,at least,has the potential to produce something very bad? So,for clarity's sake, what is OK supposed to mean?

[doug yowell]

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. Logically, no it doesn't: both groups could be wrong. The Muslims might have it right worshipping on Friday and the Hindus might have it right about reincarnation. I don't think they do, but your proposition fails the logic test.

You were specifically addressing what the Bible says (or doesn't say)about Alcohol,Sabbath,SoD,ect...and the differences between Christian Biblical interpretations so why defend your assertions by suddenly injecting non-biblical beliefs into the mix? Since neither Muslims not Hindu's accept the authority of the Bible, if they were right then logically the Bible would be wrong on any uniquely Christian assertion.If taken in the context of Biblical interpretation my claim is perfectly logical.What atheists,Hindu's,ect...teach is irrelevent to your blog's claim to accent the truth of Biblical exogesis.-----Sorry I don't know how to highlight and address your posts point by point in one response so I'll have to do it selectively and in separate posts.Please excuse my computer ignorance.