Is it a SIN???

[Poimen]

Just now saw your edit, and can't say I'm surprised that it was sarcastic and/or accusatory in intent. I'm trying really hard to be neutral (that is impersonal) in my dialog with you, and stick to the issues themselves. But your perceived cockiness makes it very difficult. And it is that same cocky or brazen framing of your arguments that causes this to wander from mere biblical discussion and debate into flaunting a perceived liberty. You don't just debate, reflect, or inform... you brag and boast, intentionally. How is that not to be perceived as a contentious display?

[Russell Roberts]

Ok Poimen,

I was going to mention a couple of verses and get your opinion. The Psalmist talks about the wine that 'makes us feel so good' - netbible translation.

Further, the Proverbs note that you should give strong drink to him that is of a heavy heart or who is perishing. Why would you suppose they would say this. Might it change the way they felt?

The reason for the edit is that my perception of you is that you are trying to support a foregone conclusion. That might sound cocky or arrogant but it is honestly the way I feel. I considered the Greek word methuo in the context of the only other verses it appears in scripture, showing how the word was used and you never once considered that it might be valid. Your idea of moderation is honestly absurd to me. If it changes the way you feel?

Honestly Poimen, I just can't relate to that. What if taking pain medicine changes the way you feel? Is pleasure a sin? Is it sinful to feel good? Again, I just can't relate to that framework of thought. I did not grow up in the COGOP believing that if I accidentally had some actual fun or felt pleasure that it was sinful.

So, feel free to address the verses I mentioned and explain them away. But I'm not trying to be cocky or arrogant. I am just almost at a loss for words.

Can people abuse alcohol? Of course they can. Can people abuse sex or chocolate or anything else that actually feels good, tastes good, causes some sense of pleasure? Yep, they sure can. That doesn't make the pleasure itself evil brother. God actually invented our senses and the idea of pleasure.

[Pastor Gary]

Yes sir. I have been drunk. It's pretty miserable brother. Maybe that's how I learned moderation. I don't like being drunk. But I don't mind getting a nice little buzz.

My intention was not to entrap you, or put you on the spot. As a life-long tea-totaller, I am just trying to understand the whole "I drink, but don't get drunk... well, unless you count buzzed..."

There's a series of TV commercials running right now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjdThaJVTW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZNeLpkfYag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IyiqXfHUsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH47izXep-0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfVJ0CNVnMM

Those of us, like me, who don't drink, don't have any desire to drink, and have never HAD a drink, find the distinction between "I don't mind getting a nice little buzz" and "I don't mind being a little bit drunk" a nebulous distinction... and even the non-Christian Ad Council apparently has the same problem distinguishing between the two. Frankly, a little buzz is drunkenness, varying only in degree.

I'm not condemning anyone, defending the total abstinence position or saying consumption of alcohol will send you to hell; I am saying -- on balance -- the consumption of alcohol creates more human misery, degradation, violence, promiscuity, heartbreak and general chaos than the sensual, temporal pleasures you allude to. If the consumption of alcohol was eliminated from society, there would be 2,000,000 people less killed in automobile accidents ANNUALLY, 3.5% of all cancer deaths would be eliminated, 2/3 of all intimate-relationship violence would be eliminated, 28% of all child suicides would be no more, and 480,000 child abuse instances annually would be eliminated... unless they were all just buzzed and not really drunk.

I'll drink to that!

[dawgs10]

The fact is russel you have went to alot of trouble to defend something that is not defend-able. all this act does even in moderation is to destroy lives and support companies that pray on those that are addicted to it. you failed to prove john 2 supports people were drunk. i did prove that the majority of all bibles and commentaries do not support your view. only a handful tends to lean in the direction that they were drunk and the majority does not. you sir may try to defend a life style that is not pleasing to God if you must. that's your right as a human being with free will. we are told to be filled with the spirit and refrain from hard drink. end of discussion. keep drinking your wine. i think instead i will be filled with new wine and stay away from the old.

[Russell Roberts]

Pastor Gary,

Here is a HUGELY important distinction in our views. You say that it is the consumption of alcohol. I say it is the ABUSE of alcohol. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier for someone in the bible to have said "Ok guys, here is the new rule. It is a sin to drink any alcohol"? Sure, that would have been easy. But they didn't.

It would have been easy for Paul to have said - hey, you know what guys, don't eat meat sacrificed to idols. It is evil, stay away from it. Why didn't he do that? Here is what I think. Paul knew that there was nothing inherently evil in the meat sacrificed to idols. ALL of creation belongs to God. What seems to have been important in Paul's instructions regarding meat sacrificed to idols is to NOT capitulate to a worldview that denies the goodness of God's creation. Paul refused to adopt a platonic worldview. There are no such things as 'gods'. What is an idol but a part of God's good creation that has accumulated power by those who refuse to render worship the one true God?

Does the fact that men worship it make the wood, or stone, or metal or whatever comprises the idol evil? I say that no, it does not. It is simply part of God's creation that cannot, being part of God's creation, be inherently evil. It has become venerated by evil men whose ability to think clearly about God has been impaired because they have refused to acknowledge the truth and render rightful worship to the one true God.

Meat in itself, as beer, is not evil. Creation belongs to God. Can someone abuse it? Yes they can. It can obtain the same kind of power over men as like any other idol - if the let it. It is only through ceding our own power that objects or others gain power over us. When someone abuses alcohol to the point that it detracts from his love for God or his love for his neighbor (including his family) it has obtained that power.

It is my contention that to say that beer or moderate consumption of beer is evil is to capitulate to a worldview that isn't healthy or scriptural. Modern Christianity, especially some of the more ascetic sects within Christianity have bought wholesale into a platonic (even a gnostic) worldview. We must maintain the moral high ground, as Paul did, by insisting that God's creation is good and worth redemption.

Even the eschatology of many Christians embrace the idea that we will finally escape this 'evil world' in favor of a 'spiritual world'. This simply isn't the vision of the New Testament nor is it good theology. Jesus came to earth to redeem it. That includes our FLESHLY bodies. Romans 8 provides a view of a future time when creation has escaped the corrosive influences of sin and death, including our physical bodies.

Whether people realize it or not, the Heavenly Jerusalem will descend to THIS EARTH that we are standing on. He will not throw this earth into the cosmic garbage can. Nor is beer, evil.

Bless you my beloved friends.

[edited slightly]

[Pastor Gary]

You need to audition for one of those dance shows on TV -- you just did a deft tap-dance around my point about the difference between buzzed and drunk so you could set up a straw man argument about use vs abuse. Nicely done.

[Russell Roberts]

dawgs, where does the bible say to 'refrain from strong drink'?

[dawgs10]

dawgs, where does the bible say to 'refrain from strong drink'?

in the qualifications of elders and deacons in chapter 3 of timothy translated by "most" commentaries list this as strong drink or wine with a high alcohol content. the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary says to avoid brawling, an action that proceeds from being given to wine. should we all not live like this or should only bishops avoid wine with a strong enough alcohol content to change our mindset (or give us a buzz).

[Russell Roberts]

You need to audition for one of those dance shows on TV -- you just did a deft tap-dance around my point about the difference between buzzed and drunk so you could set up a straw man argument about use vs abuse. Nicely done.

Pastor Gary, I love your imagery. Not quite as descriptive as the one about the guy with the muddy boots and cigar who propped his feet up on the dash that elicited a comparison from Wyatt with Dean Koontz, but nevertheless entertaining. I could learn a lesson or two from you about writing.

Still looking for rules huh? You need a blood alcohol level or what? Should I test my blood alcohol level after a drink to see if I am legally drunk? HAHA. You kill me sometimes. I wasn't setting up a straw man argument. I was giving an honest, heartfelt explanation of the theology behind my position.

But a reasonable answer to your question is impossible. Maybe I could answer it in the same way one might answer the question about the difference in art vs. pornography - "I'll know it when I see it!" LOL

I haven't just been drunk once. Nearly every weekend when I was in the army I would get drunk. I would also go to strip bars (gasp). I did a lot of things that I no longer do. But to answer your question about the difference between 'drunk and buzzed' you will just have to trust me when I tell you, I know the difference.

Call me the next time I have a pina colado or two and I will keep you up to date. Better yet, send me your cell phone number (so I can be accountable to somebody).

[Russell Roberts]

Dawg, do you mean this verse?

I Tim. 3:2 The overseer then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3:3 not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money.

Is this the verse that forbids moderate consumption?

BTW, I moderately consumed the other night and somehow, by the grace of God, by the skin of my teeth, successfully avoided destroying a bunch of peoples lives.

[dawgs10]

deacons and elders. 1 timothy 3:2 office of a bishop. it says must be vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; this verse does. if you drink one drink out of four you are a quarter drunk. (not sober) if its good enough for bishops than we should live by this as well. try the KJV on this. its clear.

[Russell Roberts]

Sober as in...not drunk?

[one love]

Pastor Gary,

Yes sir. I have been drunk. It's pretty miserable brother. Maybe that's how I learned moderation. I don't like being drunk. But I don't mind getting a nice little buzz. Along with the Psalmist, I thank God for the wine that 'makes me feel so good'! Like the Psalmist, I consider wine and other alchololic beverages to be a gift from God.

It is funny, and a bit amusing to me, when people want to make another rule. How many beers can I drink? How much ink can I carry on the Sabbath? Is it lawful to pick grain on the Sabbath? People have an extremely difficult time dealing with liberty. We want hard and fast rules so as to not cross the boundaries. Liberty is dangerous.

If we carefully consider Paul's argument in Galatians, he notes that it was Sin through the law that enslaved the Jews to the 'stoicheia' or elemental spirits of this world. He explains the same principle in Romans 7. Sin was able to exploit the rules, or, in the case of the Jews, the Torah, to elicit forbidden behavior. That's how rules work. They give sin the opportunity to enslave people bringing forth death.

What gives us liberty is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Not the liberty to sin but the the liberty to love. It is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that bears the fruit of love. I'm pretty sure you will find this response humorous but I am being serious (maybe that's why you might find it to be humorous). But my ar
gument is well founded in scripture.

The highlighted statement tosses out the moderation defense. I am not judging you but I did abuse alcohol for year PRIOR to salvation so please do not take this defensive Bro.
Drinking to get a "BUZZ" is not moderate drinking. I remember taking phsycology in college and if you drink with the intent to get a "BUZZ" or to get "DRUNK" it is no longer being moderate. As a matter of fact my professor took it much further then that but I will refrain because I do not want you to misunderstand this post

THERE is NO biblical justification for doing ANYTHING to get a BUZZ. That is NOT debating moderation.... drinking a glass of wine at dinner is moderation. I have been Buzzed and Drunk and I assure you they BOTH impair judgment and are one in the SAME just DIFFERENT degrees.

You are claiming it is okay to be impaired by alcohol because you drink to get a BUZZ only because you may be happy and not falling over drunk. Never the less they are one in the same, just a less degree. You are not talking to someone that has not been there.

Not to mention that psychologically some people have fun with alcohol, some get depressed, some get very angry. As a matter of fact some have certain genes (genetically inclined) to get very angry when impaired (buzzed/drunk) which leads to violence etc.
I was there Brother you are not going to get a pass there. I was just as impaired with judgment as I started to get Buzzed as when I was sloppy drunk. Either way I would have done the same actions.

Honestly Poimen, I just can't relate to that. What if taking pain medicine changes the way you feel? Is pleasure a sin? Is it sinful to feel good? Again, I just can't relate to that framework of thought. I did not grow up in the COGOP believing that if I accidentally had some actual fun or felt pleasure that it was sinful.

If pain meds are taken to get a BUZZ then yes it is wrong. If it is taken for pain that is different. The pain meds attach themselves to your opiod receptors in your spinal chord to relieve pain.
I remember you talking about taking vicodin before. If that was for pain and taken for a longer period of time that same dose would not generate a buzz at all. it would simply help pain like taking a aspirin. If you are chasing a buzz you would start taking more and more for that feeling. Nobody has condemned that. I believe Marijuana/THC pills should be legal for medicinal purposes it is much safer then opiods.

No one states you cant have fun. I was at dolly wood for new years and had a blast. I Did NOT need a buzz from alcohol to have fun, that is the SCARY part about your description of fun. It is scary because that is what I used to think as well. I tell all of this from the most sincere intentions.

[Russell Roberts]

onelove,

I'm starting to like you.

But I don't think that we will reach a point of agreement on this issue.

Where did you go to college?

[Russell Roberts]

I like to think of myself as being like the Psalmist who gave worship to God for the

104:14 He provides grass for the cattle,
and crops for people to cultivate,
so they can produce food from the ground,
104:15 as well as wine that makes people feel so good,
and so they can have oil to make their faces shine,
as well as food that sustains people’s lives.

Amen.