Is it okay for a christian to drink wine, beer and mixed drinks?

if it also results in violence - yes

obviously the issue is that it does harm - and while some may take it, it is not recommended for the serious candidate for spiritual advancement

http://www1.enoughisenough.com.au/pages/alcoholRelatedStats.asp

http://www.vpcla.org/factAlcohol.htm

and there is another 1 300 000 hits on google

people established in justice, criminology, psychology, medicine and sociology tend to disagree

if you admit this

we can safely dismiss this

it requires a PHD to come to that conclusion?

if you admit this

we can dismiss this

at least as far as determining whether a person is capable of driving a car safely, the justice system doesn't suffer from such problems of semantics

nothing there about crack either - I guess jesus gives the big thumbs up eh?

I guess you have no choice but to find your nearest dealer and be liberated

perhaps because alcohol was popular at the time

you mean people other than you?
I guess it depends on how much they are actually practicing as opposed to theorizing

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sarkus

how do you determine whether the persons advocating these differing interpretations are qualified or not? (or do you accept all of them for the sake of argument)

since many atheists have no philosophical principles for their convictions ( but plenty of confidence statements and ad homs) it appears to be true, even though it is pathetic

still, even before all is said an done, if one is convinced that they will not practice, their reading is useless (in other words one is obviously already convinced of something else)

yes you can

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this is a beanie I would like to wear next winter

instead it is based on the understandings of an elite few who have a qualification in the related field of direct perception

if I tell you that an electron is a proton, why would you disagree?

much like my point about the necessity of practical application don't you think?

much like my point about how many theorizing on one's laurels is useless don't you think?

since no one is born with direct perception of physics, but must go through a transitional period of faith to come to the platform of direct perception (one believes that physics is true and wonderful therefore one spends a good few years at it before they let you write things while staring down a microscope), maybe you could explain how one can acquire ANY knowledge by avoiding the step of 'faith'??

you don't realize that all fields of subtle knowledge are dependent on faith - if you disagree provide an example of one that does not

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Logical fallacy - we are talking about the "habit-forming" element - nothing else.

Biting my nails does harm? To who? How?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Logical fallacy LG - dismissing arguments on the basis of authority - not on the argument itself. This is what is known as "Appeal to Authority".

Now you are merely making excuses for what is and what is not included in the Bible.

Ditto the point above - appeal to authority. Logical fallacy.
Please remove them from your repetoire.

WTF? What has the legal system got to do with diddly? Logical fallacy - red herring. Strike... too many to count.

It's not about giving it a "thumbs up" - so yet another logical fallacy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is merely about using words of 2,000 years ago to try and live your life by. And the way people (yes - the supposed "qualified" people) do that is to put whatever interpretation on the words they see fit.

And now you are interpreting the Bible to suit your own situation / upbringing / situation etc.

Of course.

Explain. How can one practice if one doesn't know or isn't sure about what exactly one is meant to practice.



"Go Forth and build me a Rocket Ship capable of reaching the Stars!"

But how, I hear you ask? What exactly do you want?
And then if I'm no longer around to answer your questions, how indeed will you know other than through interpretation of meaning?
What do I mean by "Rocket Ship"?
- One "sect" will go and build a personal ship, capable of fitting just me.
- Another "sect" will go and build a vast ark, capable of supporting vast numbers of animals and me.
- Another will just build the smallest possible unmanned probe.

All interpretation after-the-fact to suit their own ends.
And this is the Bible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was always told that it was not bad to drink,"for we comfort our brothers with wine", but very bad to get drunk. "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, whosoever is decieved is therefore is not wise." But personally i go by the scripture, to shun the very appearance of evil. If it is percieved as evil by a few, and not by another few, then i will just default to stay away from alchohol for good. I guess it all depends if the consumption of alchohol hinders your relationship with God.

 

sarkus

your metonymic analysis is fascinating

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I dismissed your statement on the authority that you said you don't know - like for instance if I say "I am no brain surgeon but ...." you can dismiss anything I say after the word "but" if it is related to brain surgery

seriously - you would never have come to the conclusion that alcohol is harmful?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

lol - Hey ya know I'm no brain surgeon but ......

seriously? You can not determine what stands as a category of intoxication?

an intelligent person can understand that there were forms of intoxication 2000 years ago and there are forms of intoxication now and that the names and favourites may have changed but its still old wine in a new bottle, so to speak

and so are you - maybe if jesus had talked more about crack we would have a stronger message of the youth of today (except of course that no one would understand what jesus was talking about 2000 years ago)

simple

if you are already convinced of something before you begin the endeavour to understand something else, never the twain shall meet

despite such disparity you see that syllabuses about things such as physics, maths, english etc can be composed for people ranging from children to adults, with such things as 1+1=2 and ABC being a constant through out it all

in other words the divulging of knowledge tends only to be convulted when taught by the unqualified

 

All part of your circular world, LG.
They are only saintly if they follow the same circular path - and once on the circular path you can easily tell who they are. All circular, LG.
Learn to break free of it.
Go on.

Pathetic. That's not reading into physics - that's reading into an image.
Even you should understand that.
So I repeat. No you can't.

No it isn't.
Physics is what it is.
The understanding of an elite few will not make physics any less or more than what it is.
Gravity does not falter when people change their understanding of it.

The "elite few" are merely better positioned to push back the boundaries of understanding.
But physics will always be what it is.

For the same reason you would disagree if I called a bucket a spade. Definition.

Nope - not at all.
Physics is based on observation - not "practical application".
One doesn't suddenly learn more about gravity and then walk differently as a result.

Nope - but your lack of understanding of the differences that make your analogies moot is probably why you thought so.

Yes they are. This is displaying your simple lack of understanding.
Physics is what it is. It can never change.
Only our understanding of it can.
One sees anything and they have direct perception of physics.
The only person who would be born without direct perception would be someone born without any sense perception at all - including sense of balance, heat, etc - any one of 11 or so senses we have.

DRIVEL!!!

You confuse physics with our understanding of physics.
Physics DOES NOT CHANGE.
Only our understanding of it does.

At what point did you know not to eat certain things - like mud?
Through "faith"?
No.
Through direct perception from the moment you were born.

Subtle knowledge??
LOL! This very term you use implies the need for faith.
No wonder you feel the need for it.
There is no "subtle" knowledge - there is just knowledge.

Don't use such terms - as they do nothing but help keep the walls of indoctrination around your mind.
Break free of the brain-washing you have received!

 

Unfortunately your logical fallacies are nothing but tiring.

Unfortunately that was NOT the case in this instance.
I suggest you reread the words. And then apologise if you see fit.

Long-term to the body? No. Why would I? Did the Vikings?

It is irrelevant. The legal system has no bearing on this discussion.

And by doing so they can put whatever they want and label it "new wine".
One sect will put one thing in to it, another sect something entirely different.
This is my point.
Each can interpret what is meant by the "old wine" and label anything else nowadays as "new wine".

In the end all you need is COMMON SENSE.

I am doing no such thing.
I am placing no interpretation on it in these discussions.
I am merely stating that one can interpret it any way they want.

Maybe in your experience.

Convulted? New word to me - sorry. What does it mean?

In my example - who would be the "qualified" to determine what I meant?

 

*************
M*W: What about people who call themselves christians but do time for repeated DWIs? Are they really christians if they can't stop drinking and driving, yet they preach the salvation of Jesus Christ as if they were pious and holy? A little clarification, please.

 

Sarkus

 

they may be trying to surrender to jesus, bu they are not really fit preachers since their personal example is lacking

 

And yet it is YOU who fails to see the connection between your statements and my claim of logical fallacy.
Let me spell it out for you....

You said: "If I admit this: Does alcohol "distract from God"?
Maybe - to be honest I wouldn't know.

then we can safely dismiss this:
But then if alcohol does - so does chocolate, so do holidays, so does a relaxing bath etc."

THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY ON YOUR PART!!!

If you can not see this then
(a) you do not understand logical fallacies - in which case I suggest you go and research them and start trying to avoid them in your arguments; or
(b) you are being argumentative on irrelevancies for the sake of it! - in which case please stop - it is frustrating and tiring.

It is STILL IRRELEVANT!

Logical fallacy.
You are taking things to extreme - where the effects become noticeable.
This discussion is about "drinking alcohol" per se - not necessarily to excess.

Logical fallacy. Not to mention pathetic.

Logical fallacy - we are not talking about intoxication but about drinking alcohol. There is a difference.

Logical fallacy.

And it is logically fallacious to do that.
One should listen to the arguments - not the authority.
Until you realise that you will continue to struggle.

The main difference between someone established in a field is that they usually also have knowledge of the EVIDENCE to support their claims.
If they don't have this evidence then their claims / interpretations / statements are of no better value than anyone else who can NOT SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE.

Likewise - if a non-established person came along and could fully support their arguments with evidence - then this person, regardless of their lack of authority, should be preferred over anyone without evidence.

Learn this.
Use it.

[qupte]in this context, misconstrue[/quote]You do know that there is no such word as "convulted"? If there is, please provide link to meaning, derivation, etymology etc - as it's a new one on me.

And this is nothing other than admittance that to be "qualified" in a matter of belief you need to have that belief. It is the circle of your world.

Logical fallacy.
I am not talking about "institutional stamp" or "saintly by appearance". I am talking about being "qualified" as you have described it.

And that is why you are wrong.

:wtf:
You honestly think Physics has changed over time?
That gravity didn't exist before Newton was hit by an apple?
Physics is what it is.
Only our understanding of it changes.

Logical fallacy.
You were talking about "physics" - not "the understanding of physics".

But it doesn't change PHYSICS!!

Now you're just being obstreperous.
In this example of course you need direct perception.
YOU need to point to something (that is defined as X) and say that it is not X. Until I have direct perception of what it is you are talking about then there is no discussion in this regard.

All the time.
I challenge you to observe anything that is not obeying the laws of physics.

ALL THE LAWS ARE KNOWN TO PHYSICS.
PHYSICS IS DEFINED BY THE LAWS.
PHYSICS DOES NOT CHANGE.
THE UNDERLYING LAWS DO NOT CHANGE.
Only our understanding of the laws, or physics, changes.

Logical fallacy. This has never been in question nor disputed.

But ANYONE can make an observation and challenge the "elite" as long as they have the EVIDENCE to support their claim.
And the ELITE are only the ELITE because they HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

People are born with direct perception of physics. Period.
They just do not yet (when born) know how to calculate the details of what they observe.

see above.

WE ARE BORN WITH DIRECT PERCEPTION - just not an understanding of how to explain what we see.

Faith has diddly to do with it!
When will you learn.

Do you have "faith" that gravity holds you to the ground?
Please feel free to demonstrate a change in faith that will see you float.

You just do not understand.
No matter how many times people have tried to explain it to you - you just seemed blocked off to explanations.

That's not "faith" - but a subconcsious assessment of probability of future expectations. The same reason we talk about having "faith" that a friend will help you when asked.
It is the colloquial term used to express a subconscious assessment based on all the evidence of observation received up to that point.

This is very different to religious "faith".

"doof music"?
This doesn't answer the question I asked.
Did you know it is bad etiquette to answer a question with a question.

It would depend upon what the nobel prize was for, and the evidence to support the award over someone else.

This still doesn't answer the question.

 

It's not a word, then again when debating with a pathological theist, who claims to be Hindu, but always side steps to debate on behalf of christianity, and the numerous logical fallacies you've mentioned Sarkus just on this on thread alone, what can one expect? :shrug:

He loves to beat the dead horse, I'm surprised he hadn't mentioned his friend the high school drop out?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A lot of alcoholics (Christian and non-Christian ) know that their excessive drinking is wrong. This knowledge does not stop them from going out and getting drunk again and again and again. The reason they continue to get drunk is because the addiction to the alcohol. Even though many of them deeply regret taking up drinking in the first place and wish they could be free of their addiction they continue to drink to excess.

My Sister is addicted to smokes, She knows that it is bad for her health and tells me she wishes she never took up smoking. Now she found out her son has also taken up smoking and she went of the deep end at him and they had a argument, of course her son called her a hypocrite for criticising him for smoking when she is already a smoker. But irrespective of her faults she is right when she tells her son that he should stop smoking.

So people can believe and agree that their actions are wrong but still be addicted to their actions. It is not hypocrisy when someone fails to live up to the ideals they hold as true. People fall down because they are people.

And Yes i know that a lot of people who suffer from alcoholism are also devout Christians. See they know only too well that they are sinners needing to be forgiven their faults. They know they are doing wrong the more they detest themselves for it the more they appreciate being forgiven for it.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

addiction is a mental weakness of the individual. Lots of people pray on Sunday in their church to help overcome their addiction, but after the services they are at it again, either drinking or smoking, or doing elicit drugs, whatever the hang up would be. They rely on substitute substance to stop them from doing what they are seemingly addicted to.

Most people don't have the mental conviction to just stop whatever they "seemingly are addicted to" for that it takes a strong mind, one with strong will, and able to stand on it's convictions.

I speak from experience. I was an alcoholic, drug addict, my drug of choice was crack cocaine, I drank a storm, and smoked a pack a day. After having my nervous break down, I made the commitment to stop doing drugs, on my own, It's been 11 years, since. I quit smoking cigs about two years ago, I hardly ever drink, only sociably. I changed my life style without substitute substances, hence I didn't quit smoking sigs with Nicorretes gum or anything, I just plainly quit all together. I didn't substitute eating for drugs or alcohol, I just plainly quit, I've not gained weight considerably, or taken up any other destructive behavior. No prayer, no god, no angels, non of that shit helped me, I did it all on my own. It is the convictions of one committed to change their life style.

My mom quit smoking cigs pretty much the same way. After her heart operation, she just simply quit smoking! Period. It's the commitment and having the conviction to follow through. It has nothing to do with "will power" or prayer, it's following through your commitments. For that it takes a strong will.

 

Sarkus

your post doesn't make sense

Is it possible to present an abbreviated version?

the high school drop out analogy is brought up repeatedly because it is the most common argument brought up by atheists - " There is no evidence" - the next question is "evidence according to who?" - its not an issue of theism/atheism but foundations of knowledge you can apply to any discussion of knowledge

 

They are not suppose to but they do it anyways, they have this guy name Jesus and he is son of god and he will come and save them.... so they say lets do all the bad things in the world and have fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

actually it is the common pitfall - "Jesus died for our sins" - the question is why does one go on sinning if one actually in a sinless position?

 

It does if you have the decency to read it.

It is possible. But I'm not going to.
If I have the decency to read your posts through, please have the decency to do likewise with mine.

If you have any confusion about elements of it - please feel free to point them out and explain your confusion.

 

For some it takes a stronger will because the strength of the addiction is higher. While in others it takes less will because the same drug does not have the same level of addictive strength to them.

It is a mistake to think ones own struggle with addiction is the same struggle for others.

So you might think that it is a case of one person having a stronger will and another person having a weaker will, but it can also be that the substance has a more addictive effect on one person and a less addictive hold on the other.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

Perhaps, your right, but coming from combing the floor for a rock to get high, I say I was way out there, spending over $500 a week on a habit, is not a joke of how weak my addiction was, but how addicted I truly was, however I suppose it's the shock of my nervous system, that brought the high to an end, then it literally became a battle of will to leave the kind of life style I've led till then! It's hard to explain it Adstar, but I don't think quiting my addiction had anything to do with belief or lack there of, I was an atheist while I was a drug addict at the same time, being a drug addict has nothing to do with one's beliefs, it's the life style the individual has led, and has allowed himself/herself to lead, however when a choice is made and a commitment is made to one self for a change, one only lies to themselves if they continue that which they wish to leave, whatever the substance, if an individual makes the commitment to leave it, he/she will seek help if needed, until then he/she will continue on the same path.