[Lightknight]

Look, I'm not saying that we are commanded to drink alcohol. I'm saying that it's wrong to prohibit the consumption of something that Jesus drank to anyone.

[Daniel21TX]

Christ was sinless and unable to sin

This is not biblical. The bible is emphatic on the teaching that Jesus came in the flesh. That Jesus truly was human but that he was also God apart from his humanity. Jesus could have sinned, but he chose not to. The devil even tempted Jesus and tried to get Jesus to sin. If there was no chance of Jesus sinning, then what was the point of recording this account. The fact is, that Jesus could have sinned but instead Jesus "condemned sin in the flesh:" Romans 8:3.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Akshay

so you can break any law you don't agree with?

It's a law that says something Jesus did was wrong for others to do. Please tell me which one is the superior authority?

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Look, I'm not saying that we are commanded to drink alcohol. I'm saying that it's wrong to prohibit the consumption of something that Jesus drank to anyone.

Paul's command to Timothy doesn't prove this. Furthermore, the law is there for practical, not ethical reasons.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by nightowl10175

I'm not trying to have a holier-than-thou attitude, and if it came across that way, I apologize.

No! Don't get me wrong, I am saying nothing bad about your character or you in any way. I am using that as an example of what an unbeliever is more likely to think or even a Christian who drinks in moderation with complete self control.

Like I stated before, I don't try and act that as a blanket statement drinking is a sin. But If I go against my personal God given convictions, then I am sinning, that dosen't mean every other person in the world that drinks, sins, but for me it is. God speaks to each of his people in an individual voice, when I read his word in 1 Corinthians when it talks about our bodies as temples, and in Romans when it talks about our actions, to me God is saying "don't get involved in that" If you don't have that conviction, then drinking isn't a sin for you. (I hope that made sense)

How is drinking alcohol doing anything harmful to our temples? Keep in mind, we both disagree with excess.

Do not forget, Christ's "witness" was hindered because he drank wine. People called him a glutton and a drunkard. Please explain to me why we should not do it if Christ did not deem it important to stop? Are we to be "better" than Christ in our actions?

Mat 11:18 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!'
Mat 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds."

Christ hung out with the sort of people that many Christians would tell us not to associate ourselves with, Christ drank alcohol and his witness suffered in some ways because of both. Explain why not drinking to avoid unbelievers or "holy people" thinking bad things of us is the so called higher road to take when Jesus himself did not?!

Christ was more concerned with breaking the religious spirits holding the pharisees and other religious leaders of the time. Religious spirits that unfortunately still lay hold of Christians today.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Paul's command to Timothy doesn't prove this. Furthermore, the law is there for practical, not ethical reasons.

I didn't say Paul's command did. I already presented the evidence that shows Christ consumed alcohol. Read the first post.

As for you declaring that that command was only to Timothy, while I would personally agree with you, you'd have to be careful with such a statement as one could then turn around and declare that the book of Corinthians was only to that church and not to believers.

[ChrisHarbison]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Look, I'm not saying that we are commanded to drink alcohol. I'm saying that it's wrong to prohibit the consumption of something that Jesus drank to anyone.

Gavin, I'd agree with you on this issue except for one problem. Our society is a society of over-indulgence, and frankly, most of the youth of this society aren't mature enough to handle alcohol in such an environment. So for that reason alone, I have no problems with the government placing age restrictions on the stuff.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

So Gavin, you're telling us that every time you have a stomach pain you actually follow through with drinking wine? Or do you, as I do, see that verse as advice to not be so legalistic about not drinking because it was healthy to have a drink. If you see it as only advice and not a dogmatic rule for every sick tummy, then how is it wrong to obey the civil law of the land... ie underage drinking prohibited... whether you agree with it or not? Did Paul promote slavery? No. But it was the custom of that land. He said if you could be free, be free... but it wasn't revolution material. I think you ought to be very careful about just disregarding our local legal system just because you think it hints at something bad. Even if it outlawed drinking altogether, unless it's specifically saying Jesus was a sinner for not obeying current drinking laws, we ought to be following the law. Are there exceptions? I don't know. As was discussed in the other thread, you'll probably not find a single law enforcement officer who's going to bust in on communion and arrest little kiddies and their parents too. *shrugs* I don't know if that makes it okay or if that makes the law officers wrong too. Either way, just to disregard the law because you're not diggin' it and Jesus didn't do it seems a bit silly when Jesus did follow the law of the land.

Mark

EDIT: Oh, yeah, exactly what +Donny and Joshaber said. I didn't see them ask this before I'd finished my slow typing...

Well, no, I don't particularly think it was advice to not be so legalistic about drinking wine. I think drinking wine was a very common practice at the time and that no one was legalistic about it. Unless Timothy had previously been a member of a sect that drank no wine like the Nazarites (which is feasible). I think it was just advice to him in regards to some sort of sickness he had been portraying that Paul heard wind of. However, I do not think Paul would have told Timothy to do anything that was sinful. So I would consider completely within our religious rights to drink alcohol if we had an upset stomach. Though I don't do that personally, I wouldn't balk at someone who did.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by ChrisHarbison

Gavin, I'd agree with you on this issue except for one problem. Our society is a society of over-indulgence, and frankly, most of the youth of this society aren't mature enough to handle alcohol in such an environment. So for that reason alone, I have no problems with the government placing age restrictions on the stuff.

Well, I would agree with your reasoning for it. And that is why I would not sign a document legalize abolishing the drinking age limit. But I think a lot of the problems this country has with underage drinking to excess is indeed the law prohibiting the consumption at an earlier age. Thus it appears as a privaledge that only "adults" can partake of. So children naturally try to make it their perogative to gain that privaledge earlier than is legally possible just for that reason if nothing else. It also makes people who wait till they are legally old enough suddenly start over indulging as it's suddenly their newfound right to.

This is why other countries don't have anywhere near the problem with this that we do. Have you given much thought to that? Other countries sell alcohol in McDonalds and there isn't a major problem. It is this law that is making it so bad for us. I am fed up with seeing peers come to class drunk and act like they're cool for it and such. The only problem is that it has already gone on too long for us to safely remove such a law. Can you imagine the horror of seeing a nation of teenagers suddenly given a right they hadn't had before? They'd be getting drunk every night for the next several months.

As for saying that we are a nation of over indulgers, I'd agree. But that doesn't change when someone turns 21. Someone who over indulges in stuff when they're little will most likely be the ones to over indulge when their older. And who decided on 21? So a kid can drive when he's 16, vote, smoke, and fight in wars when he's 18, but he can't handle drinking at 18 for some reason? I just think such an arguement is flimsy at best.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Ryan Akers

That's great. But I don't see how that disproves my point. You don't drink alcohol and you weren't trying to correct their drunkenness....?

What you don't seem to understand was that I was drinking something. The contents did not matter to them in any way. I was drinking something, in a bar. What would you think it was if you didn't know me?

No the fermentation process has not changed. Like I said, wine was used to kill the bacteria in water, thus it was consumed in small amounts with water. The wine in the Bible was watered down, thus it is NOT the same as what we have today.

No, it wasn't. Cite that. Wine was used as a drink. It was also occasionally used to preserve food. I have presented the evidence in favor of that. Please show me where you get your information from. It didn't say Christ turned water into water and wine. He turned it into wine. It didn't say water and wine anywhere.

Christ was sinless and unable to sin...He is/was God. Thus, no, he was not toeing the line.

But he was drinking wine on a regular basis. So why would we be toeing the line if the Bible says otherwise?

Nowhere in what I have said have I said it was a sin to drink. Please do not misquote me.

You've said that what is around today is sinful, thus you have said that it is a sin to drink alcohol. Today.

No, drinking a beer will not get you DRUNK. Although, drinking a beer will have alcohol in your blood and you will be "buzzing" or whatever the new-fangled term is. Once you have the alcohol in your blood, it begins to impair you from your normal state. Though you may not be considered drunk, you are impaired a little.

My question without like trying to open a new can of worms and whatnot and cause a huge problem. What is "in excess"? Where do we draw the line?

Jesus drank alcohol. Are you saying that the buzz and/or slight impairment to his normal state was sinful? How about the people at the wedding that he gave "very good" wine to?

I think the line should be drawn by each individual. I mean, there can never be any specific amount as different people can handle different amounts. Different situations can also change the effect. Such as drinking on a full stomach versus drinking on an empty one. Drinking after taking certain drugs (prescription types I mean). I know that there are still going to be people who make stupid choices, but we can't make rules just for the stupid people's sakes. The fact is that I don't personally know how quickly alcohol would effect me. I may never know. But I can't see drinking it as anything other than a way to quench my thirst. So I think it would be safe to say that drinking it for the buzz is wrong. Drinking large amounts of it is wrong. I like tea, but when I'm no longer thirsty, I stop drinking it. The same should apply to wine.

Of course, there will always be exceptions, like people who are taste testing wine. Though the general trend there is to just swish it in your mouth and spit it out. But even if they don't, they should still keep track of how much they've consumed and call it a day at a specific point.

[smhatahy]

It's a law that says something Jesus did was wrong for others to do. Please tell me which one is the superior authority?

Romans 13
1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

Judging from that passage I would have to say that the government would be in this situation.

This is why other countries don't have anywhere near the problem with this that we do. Have you given much thought to that? Other countries sell alcohol in McDonalds and there isn't a major problem. It is this law that is making it so bad for us.

You have no support for that.

As for saying that we are a nation of over indulgers, I'd agree. But that doesn't change when someone turns 21. Someone who over indulges in stuff when they're little will most likely be the ones to over indulge when their older. And who decided on 21? So a kid can drive when he's 16, vote, smoke, and fight in wars when he's 18, but he can't handle drinking at 18 for some reason? I just think such an arguement is flimsy at best.

Does that give you the right to break the law?

Look, I'm not saying that we are commanded to drink alcohol. I'm saying that it's wrong to prohibit the consumption of something that Jesus drank to anyone.

Biblical support for that?

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Akshay

Romans 13
1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

Judging from that passage I would have to say that the government would be in this situation.

Nero ordered the murder of Christians. Hitler ordered the murder of Jews. I guess you would have just fallen into the ranks and said sir yes sir.

While I agree that those are extreme examples, it does not lessen my point at all. Scripture is a governing authority in the life of a Christian. Which is better Akshay, to obey the Bible or to obey the law if the two conflict? The wording of Romans 13 is on doing what is evil versus doing what is good.

You have no support for that.

What do you mean? Are you familiar with statistics? Cause that's where I got my support. From statistics and the many reports and such that have been presented over the years.

Please prove me wrong using support against me. (and no, articles from "MADD" don't count)

Does that give you the right to break the law?

Did you even gather the point I was making from that? Or are you so bent to disagree here that you wouldn't see it? It does no good for you to cut up my statement and then respond in such a way as that.

Biblical support for that?

Did Jesus do anything that was wrong? Everything he did was right and just. Jesus Christ, our Lord, drank wine. It is right and just to do so. To prohibit something that is right and just from people is a sin. Why should a person who is 20 years and 364 days old not drink in moderation? Heck, why should an 11 year old not drink wine in moderation?

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

As for saying that we are a nation of over indulgers, I'd agree. But that doesn't change when someone turns 21. Someone who over indulges in stuff when they're little will most likely be the ones to over indulge when their older. And who decided on 21? So a kid can drive when he's 16, vote, smoke, and fight in wars when he's 18, but he can't handle drinking at 18 for some reason?

The same argument can be made against any of the age laws. A teen can handle voting when they are 18, but not a day before? A teen can handle smoking once they are 18, but not a day before?

And who decided on 21?

...the government?

I'm with you as far as the fact that we are Biblically allowed to drink alcohol, but arguing that drinking is a God-commanded right that the government is taking away from those under 21 is just silly.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by joshaber

The same argument can be made against any of the age laws. A teen can handle voting when they are 18, but not a day before? A teen can handle smoking once they are 18, but not a day before?

I don't recall Jesus doing any of those things.

I'm with you as far as the fact that we are Biblically allowed to drink alcohol, but arguing that drinking is a God-commanded right that the government is taking away from those under 21 is just silly.

I'm saying that if it's something that Jesus Christ physically did, then there should be no law passed against it. To do such is to call it wrong.

[Ryan Akers]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

You've said that what is around today is sinful, thus you have said that it is a sin to drink alcohol. Today.

I refuse to continue in this discussion until you show me exactly where I said it is a sin. Until then, keep blowing smoke.