addictive sin?

[ichthus]

OK help me out here...Is a crack shooting, pot smoking, beer drinking homosexual scratching a lottery ticket a sinner?

Not if they don't feel convicted about it and still believe that God is Holy.

[RamboPreacher]

Are you saying getting drunk is not a sin for some people? Now I've heard it all!!

I, for one, don't believe that getting drunk once constitutes a sin!...

Agreed TW, being drunk, and being a drunkard are not the same things. I am not sure why this is so difficult for some people, except that it is easier for them to "govern" morality (what is interpreted as sin) and teach abstinence, rather than relationship, and holiness with God.

Is getting just one woman pregnant who is not your wife still sin as long as you don't repeat it?

please explain how this is even a comparison? your paradigm eludes me completely.

I was being silly somewhat, but "Be not drunk with wine" is a command just like the one against adultery. To willfully do otherwise even if it is just once is a sin in both cases.

I see. thank you for the clarification. I have already addressed that particular scripture and our different interpretations. You see a command as a part of a scripture that is part of a context left out. I do not see it that way.

Are you saying getting drunk is not a sin for some people? Now I've heard it all!!

I, for one, don't believe that getting drunk once constitutes a sin!...

Agreed TW, being drunk, and being a drunkard are not the same things. I am not sure why this is so difficult for some people, except that it is easier for them to "govern" morality (what is interpreted as sin) and teach abstinence, rather than relationship, and holiness with God.

It is also a lot easier to pay lip service to "Holiness" in a generic, theoretical sense and not offend a soul, without having to actually name anything as specifically a sin, or actually apply the theory to real life issues. If it stays a theological concept to discuss, everyone is happy.

Ahh - more clarification. you seem to want to forward your idea of holiness to others, instead of the self. You apparently see my view as not wanting to name sin. I do not, as I have said, sin is sin, but when it isn't, then it may not be, and shouldn't be aught as if they were, just because of a personal interpretation.

My guess is that a lot of others agree with my position, but because of their position or titles may not be willing to agree or participate here, because they might be perceived as condoning certain activities that some see as sinful. What is missed (again, and from another thread), based on those interpretations and limited definitions, I agree that they are sin.

The challenge that I see is that I do not see drinking a beer, or a glass of wine, as example; in and of itself, with no other information - a sin, necessarily ; where your "extreme" In my opinion) view polarizes these issues and not only makes black and white a rather gray issue, but tend to interpret your definition as being universal, or should be universal and with complete abstinence.

you may say that because I say "gray", I want to rationalize or make relative - sin. I do not. sin is sin. you just have a different interpretation of what that means, than I do. I believe I am continuing to walk in the light that I am able, as I study and grow in relationship and holiness with God.

Internalized first, not governing to others first. I know what is sin for me, whether the Bible says it is or not (directly). But I do NOT make that determination for others. It would be like me saying that playing sports is a sin for everyone and that complete abstinence should be happening, because; for me, playing sports is a sin.

[Paully_44]

I was being silly somewhat, but "Be not drunk with wine" is a command just like the one against adultery. To willfully do otherwise even if it is just once is a sin in both cases.

Wasn't the Adultry command written by God, and the "be not drunk" an admonishment by Paul?

[ichthus]

I was being silly somewhat, but "Be not drunk with wine" is a command just like the one against adultery. To willfully do otherwise even if it is just once is a sin in both cases.

Wasn't the Adultry command written by God, and the "be not drunk" an admonishment by Paul?

To me, any moral command (a "do or don't") in Scripture is God-inspired and we are to obey it, whether it was penned by Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, or John.

If God says to not do something isn't disobedience a sin?

[ichthus]

Are you saying getting drunk is not a sin for some people? Now I've heard it all!!

I, for one, don't believe that getting drunk once constitutes a sin!...

Agreed TW, being drunk, and being a drunkard are not the same things. I am not sure why this is so difficult for some people, except that it is easier for them to "govern" morality (what is interpreted as sin) and teach abstinence, rather than relationship, and holiness with God.

Is getting just one woman pregnant who is not your wife still sin as long as you don't repeat it?

please explain how this is even a comparison? your paradigm eludes me completely.

I was being silly somewhat, but "Be not drunk with wine" is a command just like the one against adultery. To willfully do otherwise even if it is just once is a sin in both cases.

I see. thank you for the clarification. I have already addressed that particular scripture and our different interpretations. You see a command as a part of a scripture that is part of a context left out. I do not see it that way.

Are you saying getting drunk is not a sin for some people? Now I've heard it all!!

I, for one, don't believe that getting drunk once constitutes a sin!...

Agreed TW, being drunk, and being a drunkard are not the same things. I am not sure why this is so difficult for some people, except that it is easier for them to "govern" morality (what is interpreted as sin) and teach abstinence, rather than relationship, and holiness with God.

It is also a lot easier to pay lip service to "Holiness" in a generic, theoretical sense and not offend a soul, without having to actually name anything as specifically a sin, or actually apply the theory to real life issues. If it stays a theological concept to discuss, everyone is happy.

Ahh - more clarification. you seem to want to forward your idea of holiness to others, instead of the self. You apparently see my view as not wanting to name sin. I do not, as I have said, sin is sin, but when it isn't, then it may not be, and shouldn't be aught as if they were, just because of a personal interpretation.

My guess is that a lot of others agree with my position, but because of their position or titles may not be willing to agree or participate here, because they might be perceived as condoning certain activities that some see as sinful. What is missed (again, and from another thread), based on those interpretations and limited definitions, I agree that they are sin.

The challenge that I see is that I do not see drinking a beer, or a glass of wine, as example; in and of itself, with no other information - a sin, necessarily ; where your "extreme" In my opinion) view polarizes these issues and not only makes black and white a rather gray issue, but tend to interpret your definition as being universal, or should be universal and with complete abstinence.

you may say that because I say "gray", I want to rationalize or make relative - sin. I do not. sin is sin. you just have a different interpretation of what that means, than I do. I believe I am continuing to walk in the light that I am able, as I study and grow in relationship and holiness with God.

Internalized first, not governing to others first. I know what is sin for me, whether the Bible says it is or not (directly). But I do NOT make that determination for others. It would be like me saying that playing sports is a sin for everyone and that complete abstinence should be happening, because; for me, playing sports is a sin.

Every church and denomination will say they believe in Holiness and Righteousness. Everyone agrees as long as you don't make application.
Even the most liberal denominations "believe" in Holiness and "righteosness" and even use these terms as reasons why they ordain homosexuals, etc., etc., because to not do so would not be "holy or righteous" according to them. (It would be judgmental, unloving, and unkind).

[RamboPreacher]

...
Every church and denomination will say they believe in Holiness and Righteousness. Everyone agrees as long as you don't make application.
Even the most liberal denominations "believe" in Holiness and "righteosness" and even use these terms as reasons why they ordain homosexuals, etc., etc., because to not do so would not be "holy or righteous" according to them. (It would be judgmental, unloving, and unkind).

I agree with your post. That's why application, and discipleship needs to take place!

[Full Quiver]

Rambo, you put words in my mouth to try and prove your point. I never said that drinking wine one time is the same as being drunk or being a drunkard. I said being drunk one time is a sin because the Word says be not drunk. I also said if you get drunk, even 1 time, then you are at least a 1 time drunkard.

You say we "govern morality" yet we could say the same for you. Rambo, by saying that it is perfectly ok to be drunk one time or here and there is "governing morality". You sir are telling folks that it is fine to be drunk as long as your not an alcoholic. That is "governing morality". You guys scream that we are judging when you must first JUDGE us in order to come to that conclusion. Funny how that works.

I assume that one could drink wine everyday, habitually, and never get drunk, not even once.


TW, The Bible and your recipe are 2 different things. I prefer the Word.

[TW]

Danny,
I never drew a parallel between the recipe for LIIT and the Bible. I posted the recipe as a point of reference, to show the amount of alcohol in just one glass. The point that I was trying to make is that we, and I include myself in this, too often label something sin when we lack all of the facts and/or information


TW

[one love]

Rambo, you put words in my mouth to try and prove your point. I never said that drinking wine one time is the same as being drunk or being a drunkard. I said being drunk one time is a sin because the Word says be not drunk. I also said if you get drunk, even 1 time, then you are at least a 1 time drunkard.

You say we "govern morality" yet we could say the same for you. Rambo, by saying that it is perfectly ok to be drunk one time or here and there is "governing morality". You sir are telling folks that it is fine to be drunk as long as your not an alcoholic. That is "governing morality". You guys scream that we are judging when you must first JUDGE us in order to come to that conclusion. Funny how that works.

I assume that one could drink wine everyday, habitually, and never get drunk, not even once.


TW, The Bible and your recipe are 2 different things. I prefer the Word.

That about wraps it up i think to many excuses for sin and worldliness are over crowding the word of God, if you dont agree with all of it you are legalistic.

[ichthus]

Rambo, you put words in my mouth to try and prove your point. I never said that drinking wine one time is the same as being drunk or being a drunkard. I said being drunk one time is a sin because the Word says be not drunk. I also said if you get drunk, even 1 time, then you are at least a 1 time drunkard.

You say we "govern morality" yet we could say the same for you. Rambo, by saying that it is perfectly ok to be drunk one time or here and there is "governing morality". You sir are telling folks that it is fine to be drunk as long as your not an alcoholic. That is "governing morality". You guys scream that we are judging when you must first JUDGE us in order to come to that conclusion. Funny how that works.

I assume that one could drink wine everyday, habitually, and never get drunk, not even once.


TW, The Bible and your recipe are 2 different things. I prefer the Word.

That about wraps it up i think to many excuses for sin and worldliness are over crowding the word of God, if you dont agree with all of it you are legalistic.

I really do believe God's grace covers a ton of stuff and that He is very patient with his children, and there is A LOT of stuff tolerated in people's lives that isn't His highest plan for us or His perfect will. I really do believe there is a Higher Way of holiness and separation such as Andrew Murray, Charles Finney, John Wesley, etc., wrote about and proclaimed. I'm not talking at all about dress codes and rules, and I think people who come from a legalistic background and then come into freedom may have a tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water or even swing more to the other side in their zeal. I've seen many cases of that in women for instance that were set free from legalistic "no make-up or jewelry" type rules that when they first step out go WAY overboard and overdo it to the point that they outdo regular secular women who never had a problem with a little make-up and jewelry. I see it really strong in movies and videos too, people going from a no movies background to a place where you would be shocked what they see on videos, even with kids, and not bat an eye. (LOL, actually I've also heard of people who hold to the old no movie theatre rule and then rent R-rated movies to take home .)
It all IS a heart issue, but I do believe that many Christians are much more comfortable and conformed to society and if they were in the historic revivals that hit America might even be more uncomfortable than the sinners! In Charles Finney's revivals the unsaved would get saved in masses, under conviction, and the religious people and Christians would get so mad at things he said.

[RamboPreacher]

Rambo, you put words in my mouth to try and prove your point. I never said that drinking wine one time is the same as being drunk or being a drunkard. I said being drunk one time is a sin because the Word says be not drunk. I also said if you get drunk, even 1 time, then you are at least a 1 time drunkard.

You say we "govern morality" yet we could say the same for you. Rambo, by saying that it is perfectly ok to be drunk one time or here and there is "governing morality". You sir are telling folks that it is fine to be drunk as long as your not an alcoholic. That is "governing morality". You guys scream that we are judging when you must first JUDGE us in order to come to that conclusion. Funny how that works.

I assume that one could drink wine everyday, habitually, and never get drunk, not even once.


TW, The Bible and your recipe are 2 different things. I prefer the Word.

That about wraps it up i think to many excuses for sin and worldliness are over crowding the word of God, if you dont agree with all of it you are legalistic.

then i will agree to disagree with you both. because as I have said (several times) - I do not believe that being drunk (in and of itself) is the same as being a drunkard. You are both reading into my posts with your preconceived ideas of definitions of sin. I never said that getting drunk one time is NEVER a sin. my posts are clear if you read them.

I said that being drunk is NOT the same as being a drunkard. It may be a sin for some to be drunk, even once! but since you have such a limited understanding of some of these issues, in my opinion, that you apparently can't come out of that box in a paradigm shift in understanding what someone else is saying, because you THINK it is against, or opposed to what your current paradigm is; when it is NOT.

The topic of this thread is about addictive things. Being drunk (even once) is NOT necessarily (this means that it might or it might not be) addictive or harmful. Being a drunkard is (always, by definition) addictive/habitual!

[one love]

Rambo, you put words in my mouth to try and prove your point. I never said that drinking wine one time is the same as being drunk or being a drunkard. I said being drunk one time is a sin because the Word says be not drunk. I also said if you get drunk, even 1 time, then you are at least a 1 time drunkard.

You say we "govern morality" yet we could say the same for you. Rambo, by saying that it is perfectly ok to be drunk one time or here and there is "governing morality". You sir are telling folks that it is fine to be drunk as long as your not an alcoholic. That is "governing morality". You guys scream that we are judging when you must first JUDGE us in order to come to that conclusion. Funny how that works.

I assume that one could drink wine everyday, habitually, and never get drunk, not even once.


TW, The Bible and your recipe are 2 different things. I prefer the Word.

That about wraps it up i think to many excuses for sin and worldliness are over crowding the word of God, if you dont agree with all of it you are legalistic.

then i will agree to disagree with you both. because as I have said (several times) - I do not believe that being drunk (in and of itself) is the same as being a drunkard. You are both reading into my posts with your preconceived ideas of definitions of sin. I never said that getting drunk one time is NEVER a sin. my posts are clear if you read them.

I said that being drunk is NOT the same as being a drunkard. It may be a sin for some to be drunk, even once! but since you have such a limited understanding of some of these issues, in my opinion, that you apparently can't come out of that box in a paradigm shift in understanding what someone else is saying, because you THINK it is against, or opposed to what your current paradigm is; when it is NOT.

The topic of this thread is about addictive things. Being drunk (even once) is NOT necessarily (this means that it might or it might not be) addictive or harmful. Being a drunkard is (always, by definition) addictive/habitual!

Rambo the problem is you take the obvious and turn it around a thousand times. The same with gambling you made into everything in the world except the topic. It started on gambling and I PLAINLY mentioned what i was talking about "rolling dice, poker, casinos" but you kept implying we dont know the difference between other forms of gambling or that we catorgorize and that is not the issue. I was simply talking about gambling in the sense that it was presented in. IN that you said you knwo it is sin, but it is not sin, could be to some and not to to others, if it is illegal it is wrong but not to all....HUH

Now it has been evident what has been talked about i have heard you say it is not wrong to be drunk one time and here it is

please tell me where it says that it is a sin to drink wine to get drunk one time? it says that (in this case, and in this context), it is reckless (asotia, transliterated, and translated as "dissipation" in this version), but it does NOT say that it is a sin for EVERYONE. so there goes your drink once to get drunk equates to sin for everyone theory.

you make so many exceptions to a basic question that turns the discussion in a thousand different directions that ends up equating to you saying we dont understand the different meanings, well I do I just dont get your logic.

Yes i am a SIN is SIN guy. It is wrong to be drunk, you say it is not but only to be a drunkard, so I guess that now depends on what a drunkard is to you, would that be once a week, twice a week, everyday, what would it be, is it sin to be drunk twice? Or is once allowed but not twice? Or is it ok for one to be drunk once but not the other?

I will say it again the holiness movement is losing its heritage and is really moving far the other direction, really far.

I have heard nw that really nothing can be called sin anylonger almost nothing....unless it is on the ten commandments it is not sin...

just to add we can agree to disagree, that is fine with me

[ichthus]

Rambo, you put words in my mouth to try and prove your point. I never said that drinking wine one time is the same as being drunk or being a drunkard. I said being drunk one time is a sin because the Word says be not drunk. I also said if you get drunk, even 1 time, then you are at least a 1 time drunkard.

You say we "govern morality" yet we could say the same for you. Rambo, by saying that it is perfectly ok to be drunk one time or here and there is "governing morality". You sir are telling folks that it is fine to be drunk as long as your not an alcoholic. That is "governing morality". You guys scream that we are judging when you must first JUDGE us in order to come to that conclusion. Funny how that works.

I assume that one could drink wine everyday, habitually, and never get drunk, not even once.


TW, The Bible and your recipe are 2 different things. I prefer the Word.

That about wraps it up i think to many excuses for sin and worldliness are over crowding the word of God, if you dont agree with all of it you are legalistic.

then i will agree to disagree with you both. because as I have said (several times) - I do not believe that being drunk (in and of itself) is the same as being a drunkard. You are both reading into my posts with your preconceived ideas of definitions of sin. I never said that getting drunk one time is NEVER a sin. my posts are clear if you read them.

I said that being drunk is NOT the same as being a drunkard. It may be a sin for some to be drunk, even once! but since you have such a limited understanding of some of these issues, in my opinion, that you apparently can't come out of that box in a paradigm shift in understanding what someone else is saying, because you THINK it is against, or opposed to what your current paradigm is; when it is NOT.

The topic of this thread is about addictive things. Being drunk (even once) is NOT necessarily (this means that it might or it might not be) addictive or harmful. Being a drunkard is (always, by definition) addictive/habitual!

I agree it doesn't always become an addiction. But that doesn't make it not a sin.

You can lie once without being a habitual liar.

You can snort cocaine once without being addicted.

You can look at pornography once and not necessarily become addicted.

You can fornicate one time and not become a prostitute.

You can get stinking drunk once and not become an alcoholic.

If that is not a sin, were you to drive and hit a little kid on his bike and kill him while under the influence does it suddenly become a sin?

Just when would willfully choosing to get drunk NOT be sinful?

Give one example. And when would it become a sin? The 2nd time? 3rd time?

I don't understand your reasoning at all! The Bible NEVER speaks of the drunken state in a positive light. Every mention is connected to wickedness and evil. Give one case or one example of "good" drunkenness and non-sinful self chosen, self provoked drunkeness. Enlighten this poor legalistic preacher and why you are at it, enlighten the Church of Jesus Christ for the last few centuries

[RamboPreacher]

I agree it doesn't always become an addiction. But that doesn't make it not a sin.

please provide scriptural proof of this doctrinal stand that it is always a sin for everyone.

You can lie once without being a habitual liar.

but bearing false witness/lying is a sin and there is scriptural reference of this and can be said to be a doctrinal stand.

You can snort cocaine once without being addicted.

and I agree. you have an assumption that I am trying to condone this activity? I am not. if it were legal, as example, I would have to say that taking a doctrinal stand against it would be just as incorrect as a doctrinal statement against gambling.

You can look at pornography once and not necessarily become addicted.

I agree again, though it is probably not going to keep one from lust (which is a sin). accidentally seeing pron, in junk mail, or other internet popups, and removing it immediately would not be sin, but your apparent definition would be.

You can fornicate one time and not become a prostitute.

agree, but this too doesn't make sense as sexual sins are expressed in the Bible directly.

You can get stinking drunk once and not become an alcoholic.

agreed. This is part of my previous posts. and nuless there is reckless/negative, detrimental aspects, circumstances, please show me where the Bible says that it is sin always and for everyone. a scriptural, doctrinal stand can't be made.

If that is not a sin, were you to drive and hit a little kid on his bike and kill him while under the influence does it suddenly become a sin?

yes, because you are driving under the influence. you killed a kid, I have been very clear on this subject. being drunk, in and of itself is not a sin. it CAN be (as I have said many times now), but it isn't always and for everyone.

Just when would willfully choosing to get drunk NOT be sinful?

if I give an example, then you will say that I am condoning it for everyone and I am not. how about a Biblical example of celebrating at a wedding (not being reckless, and not driving while under the influence, and not negatively affecting family, friend or Godly relationship.)

Give one example. And when would it become a sin? The 2nd time? 3rd time?

example given, though I am sure I am not listing all the circumstances and variables, since it is a "what if" scenario and infinite variables are potential. I can not say when it would become sin for everyone, there are too many variables, and I would not like to get int o prejudgment and governing of morality for others without direct scriptural reference. however for me personally, it would become sin if I abuse it, if I begin hiding it, or if it becomes reckless, and other indirect issued that hinder me from relationship with God.

Paul said, "all things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything."

[ichthus]

This is a first! I have read many posts on Christian forums defending a little use of alcohol, but it is the first time I have EVER ran across anyone defending willful drunkenness. Are you really a preacher or a pastor?

First of all, I don't have a problem with a little use of alcohol. I minister much in Europe. What do you do with all the verses in Proverbs even on wine use and strong drink? Theres enough in there to get proof texts for total abstinence. It is only as you bring in other verses and examples that you can build a view to allow a small use of alcohol. But nothing to ever defend willfully being drunk. You can't do it. You can't give one instance where willfully being drunk is OK and holy and approved by God.
You also can never show that being willfully high on drugs is OK by God.
Have you ever read Proverbs?

You say drunkenness is Ok. God says it's not, and that's all that matters.

I'm not gonna take the time to look them all up, but just off the top of my head if i'm quoting them right:

"Be not among winebibers nor riotous eaters of flesh" condemns both gluttony and too much alcohol.

"It is not for kings and priests to drink wine" (it impairs judgment)

Priests were forbidden to drink wine when they were to minister or handle holy things. Not even touch it.

"Look not at the wine when it is red in the cup, when it turneth itself aright.... at the end it bites like a serpent"

"wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging..."

If drunkeness is always mentioned as sin and negative in the bible, how can it ever be OK? You CANNOT give even one example where it would ever be OK to willfully do it. So your argument is mute.