[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by nightowl10175

No we are not better than Christ and no he didn't deem it important to stop, he also didn't command us to drink. I personally chose not to drink because it is an open door that can lead to sin, and because it may hinder others.

All that statement was to say was that it isn't sinful in the same situations that Jesus was in. We don't have to drink. But if someone wanted to, there's no reason to even stick one's nose up at them.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

If something is sinful for any age, then it is sinful for all ages.

What if the government says I cannot vote until I am 18? Would it be a sin to vote? What if I bought cigarettes before I was 18? Would that be a sin?

I am saying that a government cannot call something wrong if Jesus himself did it.

I agree. Of course, you are yet to establish at what age Jesus began drinking.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by joshaber

What if the government says I cannot vote until I am 18? Would it be a sin to vote? What if I bought cigarettes before I was 18? Would that be a sin?

What is the reason for that? Because the nation doesn't think that children are mature enough to vote at that age. I can't clearly say whether or not cigarettes are sinful so I can't really form an arguement either way, we know drinking is biblically just in moderation. Alcohol consumption was limited because of a public outcry that it was a sin.

I agree. Of course, you are yet to establish at what age Jesus began drinking.

Does it matter? At all?

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

What is the reason for that? Because the nation doesn't think that children are mature enough to vote at that age. I can't clearly say whether or not cigarettes are sinful so I can't really form an arguement either way, we know drinking is biblically just in moderation. Alcohol consumption was limited because of a public outcry that it was a sin.

You're missing my point, Gavin. You made the claim that sin is not age-relative: either something is a sin for all ages or it is a sin for no ages.

Now, I asked if I were to buy cigarettes prior to being 18, would that be a sin? Of course it would, because I would be disobeying the government which is, itself, a sin. Therefore, there are sins that are age-relative.

Does it matter? At all?

Yes. If you are claiming that we should disobey the government and allow minors to drink (because Jesus did it) then you had better back that up by showing clear example by Jesus. You have not.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Jaywalking is a bad example because:

1. Jesus never did it.

2. It is protecting you from being hit by a car or causing others to be hurt.

This is the same reason why drinking and driving are illegal.

It's a good example because:

1) The point is to establish whether or not a law made must mean the government is out to portray it as a sin. This example proves it does not.

2) And drinking laws are intended to protect you and your surrounding society from your drunken stupidity and/or underage sometimes-way-too-immature decision making processes. (your being the hypothetical anyone this law applies to).

So how is it any different for this situation. Unless you can prove that it being law means it's trying to say it's a sin and, hence, Jesus was sinning, I think you need to work on what you associate with illegal... which is not sin, but simply what it is... local law, nothing more.

Mark

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by joshaber

You're missing my point, Gavin. You made the claim that sin is not age-relative: either something is a sin for all ages or it is a sin for no ages.

Now, I asked if I were to buy cigarettes prior to being 18, would that be a sin? Of course it would, because I would be disobeying the government which is, itself, a sin. Therefore, there are sins that are age-relative.

No, because the sin isn't buying the cigarette, the sin is breaking the law. .

Yes. If you are claiming that we should disobey the government and allow minors to drink (because Jesus did it) then you had better back that up by showing clear example by Jesus. You have not.

Jesus drank, therefore it isn't sinful. The law was made from a Christian standpoint that drinking is sinful.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

It's a good example because:

1) The point is to establish whether or not a law made must mean the government is out to portray it as a sin. This example proves it does not.

Drinking alcohol is a different law altogether in that we have clear historical documents, including high school textbooks, that show it as a Christian movement calling drinking a sin.

2) And drinking laws are intended to protect you and your surrounding society from your drunken stupidity and/or underage sometimes-way-too-immature decision making processes. (your being the hypothetical anyone this law applies to).

Are you telling me that adults who are "DRUNK" act intelligently? Being drunk is a sin. We are talking about allowing people to drink here. In moderation is what we'd prefer. Just because someone can get drunk off of something isn't a reason to ban it. I can buy a lot of things that could kill me or do other things that are bad.

So how is it any different for this situation. Unless you can prove that it being law means it's trying to say it's a sin and, hence, Jesus was sinning, I think you need to work on what you associate with illegal... which is not sin, but simply what it is... local law, nothing more.

Mark

Did you learn anything on the days of prohibition in your high school history class? "Christian activists" got their way. Then they got a settlement with everyone else.

[smitty2622]

Just one question, are you actually promoting or saying that underage drinking is ok? What about other drugs? Ok maybe that’s two questions.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

No, because the sin isn't buying the cigarette, the sin is breaking the law. .

Exactly my point! It is a sin when I am under 18, but not a sin when I am over 18. Therefore, sins can be age-relative.

Jesus drank, therefore it isn't sinful. The law was made from a Christian standpoint that drinking is sinful.

You aren't addressing the issue. Yes, Jesus drank, but for that to be enough you must prove that no sin is age-relative, and you have not shown that. Since you have not shown that, you must show the age at which Jesus began drinking wine.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by smitty2622

Just one question, are you actually promoting or saying that underage drinking is ok? What about other drugs? Ok maybe that’s two questions.

I would say that currently, underage drinking is a sin because it is illegal. It is a law, however, that shouldn't be there. The reason being that Christ drank and therefore leaves us without evidence to call drinking sinful. So a kid drinking alcohol (IN MODERATION) wouldn't be naturally sinful. Unfortunately, there is a law in place which was created by people who argued that drinking is a sin. And that's why it's there. It doesn't mean that we can disobey it (because we aren't comanded to drink), but it is still existing for the wrong reason and has caused more of a problem than anything else.

As for other drugs, I think they're very wrong. This thread is only on alcohol though.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by joshaber

Exactly my point! It is a sin when I am under 18, but not a sin when I am over 18. Therefore, sins can be age-relative.

No, it isn't the sin that changes, it is the law that changes. It is that the law allows you to do it. It is always a sin to break the law (assuming it's not something that Hitler would have made). In order to have it your way, breaking the law would have to be a sin for them at a certain age and then become not a sin for them later on.

In other words, you have mixed up your variable with your constant. The variable being the law, the constant being the sin. You have made the law and the sin variables. But since the sin is breaking the law, it is always a sin and therefore must be constant.

You aren't addressing the issue. Yes, Jesus drank, but for that to be enough you must prove that no sin is age-relative, and you have not shown that. Since you have not shown that, you must show the age at which Jesus began drinking wine.

You haven't shown any sin to be age related.

[joshaber]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

In other words, you have mixed up your variable with your constant. The variable being the law, the constant being the sin. You have made the law and the sin variables. But since the sin is breaking the law, it is always a sin and therefore must be constant.

Ahh... something was bothering me about my example and I couldn't figure out what it was. That was it.

Now in reading your reply to Smitty, I'm confused. Do you believe those underage should or should not drink alcohol?

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by joshaber

Now in reading your reply to Smitty, I'm confused. Do you believe those underage should or should not drink alcohol?

The thing that I've been arguing this entire time hasn't been that we should disobey the law. Just that this particular law is a bad one. Either way we have to obey it. It was a law that was put into place by Christians who called drinking at all, sinful (thus calling Christ sinful). I will not add "underage drinking is bad" to the list because biblically speaking, it's not. Breaking the law is the sin, not the drinking in moderation. It could be considered an entirely different debate.

[Godreignsoveral]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

The thing that I've been arguing this entire time hasn't been that we should disobey the law. Just that this particular law is a bad one. Either way we have to obey it. It was a law that was put into place by Christians who called drinking at all, sinful (thus calling Christ sinful). I will not add "underage drinking is bad" to the list because biblically speaking, it's not. Breaking the law is the sin, not the drinking in moderation. It could be considered an entirely different debate.

Hey Latenight, I mean Lightknight, I've been askin' questions and mainly just watchin', but I think, in the end, I agree with you. I agree that drinking, in and of itself, is not sinful. I believe that the only problem with underagers is that it's breaking the law. And I believe that this law is stupid but kind of has us in a pickle at this point. How do you propose fixing the problem of the problematic law then?

Mark

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Godreignsoveral

Hey Latenight, I mean Lightknight, I've been askin' questions and mainly just watchin', but I think, in the end, I agree with you. I agree that drinking, in and of itself, is not sinful. I believe that the only problem with underagers is that it's breaking the law. And I believe that this law is stupid but kind of has us in a pickle at this point. How do you propose fixing the problem of the problematic law then?

Mark

Well, it really has us in a bind. If the government suddenly lifted the restriction then all hell would break loose in the next few months/years. It would take us may years to get to the point we want to be at (like many other nations that don't have an age law, yet also don't have a major problem with it).

Here is something I said earlier along these lines:
"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"

The only solution would be some sort of staggered yearly age limit reduction. Like every few years or so, lessening the age limit by some amount. I think 18 should be the age now anyways, seeing as that is the age when they can do everything else, why not drink alcohol? This would effectively lessen the immediate damage that removing the limit altogether would do.

Though at a certain age (let congress decide), there should be the necessity of having an adult with you.