Christians And Alcohol

Eaglesway · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Beautiful, wise post.

Cindy_Skillman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Thanks, Eagle’s Way. That means a lot, especially from you.

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Here’s are some interesting articles I’ve found

Alcohol in the Bible.
The Alcohol Content of Wine in the Bible
Wine in the Ancient World

These might shed some light on some “open concerns” in this forum thread. I’ll quote the second article - as it is short:

Those who oppose the Christian use of alcohol often argue that the alcohol content of wine in Bible plays an essential role in determining whether the use of alcohol is permissible for Christians.

Two Kinds of Wine in the Bible?

The Scriptures mention “wine” over two hundred times, both in positive and negative contexts. Some Christians have used this positive/negative distinction to argue that the Bible is speaking of two different kinds of wine.

When the Bible speaks positively of wine, then this is referring to “wine” as non-alcoholic grape juice. When the Bible speaks negatively of wine, then this is referring to “wine” as alcoholic wine.

This argument was very popular among prohibitionists, particularly those that led the Temperance Movement. The advantage of this position is that it seems as though one is able to account for all of the Scriptures.

Explanation
However, the alleged distinction between alcoholic wine and non-alcoholic grape juice does not exist in the Bible. The Bible uses the same word for wine in both positive and negative aspects.

The positive/negative distinction has to do with the use/abuse of alcohol. When the Bible speaks positively of wine, this is referring to the moderate use of alcohol. When the Bible speaks negatively of wine, this is referring to the abuse of alcohol, or drunkenness.

Was Wine Heavily Diluted?

Some Christians maintain that the wine in the Bible was almost non-alcoholic. It is argued that all wine in ancient times was filtered and dried into a paste, which was then mixed with water. Thus, small amounts of alcohol were present in wine, but the wine was so diluted as to minimize the intoxicating effects. The alcohol that was used was strictly for preservation purposes.

According to this view, the Bible does not prohibit the use of wine, provided we understand wine to be heavily diluted so that it was basically grape juice with only enough alcohol to preserve the grape juice from spoiling.

In our day, we have purified water, pasteurized grape juice, and refrigeration. There is no need to rely upon alcohol as a preservative. Thus, Christians should abstain from beverages that have a significant alcohol content, which would include all of our modern beers, wines, and liquors. This is the argument of many abstentionists.

Explanation
This particular abstentionist argument demands that all wine was heavily diluted. While dilution was certainly used in some circumstances, this was far from the universal practice. The Biblical admonitions against drunkenness should suffice to prove that not everyone was diluting. Obviously, at least some people were getting a hold of the real thing and becoming drunk. If all “wine” was so low in alcohol content, then one would have to consume gallons and gallons to get drunk.

Moreover, this low-alcohol content argument has no support in historical scholarship. Virtually every scholar agrees that the alcohol content of wine during Biblical times was usually between 5-20%, which is enough to intoxicate.

Ironically, one popular abstentionist argues that the burden of proof should fall on those who claim that Biblical wine contained alcohol. This bold claim is precisely the opposite of reality. The burden of proof always falls on those who are against the consensus of historical scholarship. Such abstentionists have failed to prove that dilution was the universal practice.

Furthermore, many Biblical texts become silly or meaningless if they refer to non-alcoholic grape juice. Would the Shulamite have said to Solomon, “Your love is better than grape juice” (Song of Songs 1:2)?

If wine was super-diluted, why did the good Samaritan pour grape juice on the wounds of the man going to Jericho (Luke 10:34)? Why did Paul counsel Timothy to drink a little grape juice for his stomach (1 Timothy 5:23)?

If wine was basically grape juice, then the weaker brother argument is pointless (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8). Why would anyone object to the consumption of grape juice? No one’s faith is threatened by grace juice.

The wine of the Bible had to have been alcoholic. Alcohol can intoxicate, clean wounds, and heal stomach troubles. Grape juice does none of these things.

Is Alcohol Sinful?

Those who argue that some or all of the wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic or low-alcoholic are operating from a presupposition: alcohol is sinful. Both prohibitionists and abstentionists read the Scriptures through this presupposition.

However, material things are not sinful. Sin does not reside in objects, but in the human heart. Sin comes from the misuse of God’s gifts, not the godly use of God’s gifts. As we will see in the next chapter, alcohol is a gift from God. There is a godly and moderate use of alcohol.

Of course, if I visit the Amish - there will be no alcohol:

Paidion · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Thank you for your wise post, Cindy. I had planned to let the apostle Paul speak on the subject, but before I got to it, you posted that bit of wisdom.

I cannot help but think Paul’s instruction concerning meat-eaters versus vegetarians applies here as does Paul’s instruction concerning observing certain days versus thinking of all days as alike:

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
3 Let not the one who eats despise [discount] the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Rom 14 ESV)

Also the following passage is applicable:

13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.
16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.
21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.
23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.(Rom 14 ESV)

Notice that Paul puts eating meat in the same class as drinking wine. The implication seems to be that both are right if one eats or drinks in faith. Otherwise it is sin. It would be sin to eat or drink with a guilty conscience about the matter. If we discern that eating or drinking would cause a dear brother or sister to stumble in his or her faith, then one ought to abstain in the presence of such a one.

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

From Randy’s quote above:

I like it

Cindy, you got it right about fermentation (from a guy who makes sauerkraut 3 gal at a time)

Paidion… That was good. Real good

Paidion · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Cute video, Randy.

Of course real Amish would not even permit a photo of themselves to be taken, let alone a video—and would certainly not behave foolishly.

Paidion · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

What give you that idea?

amishamerica.com/do_the_amish_dr/

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Actually, you find bars in Amish towns. And bars in hotels and motels - in Amish towns. It’s not clear to me if they drink themselves, And local bars, where the town folks hang out - can really be unfriendly to visitors. I like to hang around Arcola, Illinois, which is heavily Amish.

But the Amish allow their youth to experiment with alcohol, etc. (if they wish to) - usually at high school age. This gives their youth a chance to experiment and see if they like to remain with the Amish or go out into the “real” world. So it’s not surprising to see high school age Amish drinking and smoking - perhaps even a joint.

And one Amish in Arcola owns a gun shop. So they really don’t have any hard rules to owning businesses, where they might not practice what they are selling. Or using technology of neighbors - like a phone - as long as they don’t own it. If any do drink or smoke - it’s more of an exception - then the norm. They really don’t like to talk to outsiders - except in business dealings or if you are local folks.

Paidion · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

My understanding is that the Old Order Amish both smoke and drink, if they wish.
But the New Order Amish shun both.

I taught in a Hutterite Community for 3 years. Hutterites are different from Amish, of course. But they make their own wine, and also drink beer at weddings, and takes sips of brandy mixed with some other strong drink, almost as a formality. I have attended several Hutterite weddings.

Hutterites differ from Mennonites and Amish, chiefly in their practice of community of goods (as was practised by the first Christians
(Acts, chapter 2).

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

I’ll have to read up more on the old and new order Amish. But I can say this. There’s a local Amish restaurant in Arcola. They don’t serve alcohol. But their food alone is worth a trip and the prices are really affordable.

I found this on Yahoo Answers: Do Amish people drink alcohol?. Here’s one answer, that confirms your understanding:

Now to the answers on their children:

By the way: The video is by “Weird” Al Yankovic - Amish Paradise. He specializes in parody videos and has been around since the seventies. These are my favorites. For some strange reason, I can relate the the second video. I still can’t decide between Kirk and Pircard. Life was so much simpler in the old days. Now I’m torn between:

Pircard vs “old” Kirk vs “new” Kirk
“Old” Spock vs “new” Spock
Old Star Wars characters vs new Star Wars characters

And I’m still trying to determine which expert - if any - has the right answer to What weighs more: an empty 32GB flash drive or a fully loaded 32GB flash drive?

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

This is a continuation of my previous post. I knew my memory got this information - even though it is incorrect - from somewhere. It’s from Teetotalism:

As Paidion correctly points out and I found this on Yahoo Answers - to confirm this understanding: Do Amish people drink alcohol?.

Now to the answers on their children:

There’s also an interesting site called AMISH: OUT OF ORDER from National Geographic. This verifies the children comments, quoted earlier in Yahoo Answers:

We find this from Amish America entitled Do the Amish drink?

We might think that drinking is not a part of the culture, but Amish and alcohol can and do mix. Most famously, it’s Rumspringa-age youth, but in the decentralized Amish system, there is no across-the-board Mormon-like principle against consumption.

So it would probably depend more on the community and custom, and of course individual preference.

New Order Amish are completely against it. Alcohol, like tobacco and bed courtship, was one of the sticking points that caused them to split off in the 60’s. In the Old Order world it’s not so clear-cut.

I once sat with an Amishman in central Indiana as he told me, with something akin to horror, of a settlement in another state where hard liquor was customary on greeting a visitor. Sounds more like Polish custom now that I think about it.

I’ve noticed the odd bottle of hard stuff on Amish shelves a couple times; I’ve bumped into a dad or two having a Saturday night brew. Amish may have a celebratory drink at weddings. Homemade spirits like wine or cider were perhaps more common in the past.

The lesson here. We can get “misinformation” at some point in time - like I did. Then the correct solution - given a new piece of information - is to research it and get confirmation, from several reliable sources.

Now I can get back to my most pressing concern: which expert - if any - has the right answer to What weighs more: an empty 32GB flash drive or a fully loaded 32GB flash drive?

pilgrim · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

This is a particularly interesting thread for me as I have recently become an Adherent to the local Salvation Army Corps and soldiers of the Salvation Army take a covenant before God that they will abstain from alcohol.

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

There’s an answer to that question from their own London based website: Why don’t Salvationists drink, smoke or gamble?:

The misery and poverty of London’s East End, which was often exacerbated by excessive drinking, led the Army’s Founders to regard drink as a social evil. They made total abstinence from alcohol a condition of membership because abstinence rather than moderation seemed to them to be the most effective answer to the tragedies caused by drunkenness and alcoholism.

Today, tragedies caused through excessive drinking are no less in evidence, and the Army feels it would be hypocritical to come alongside and try to help in such situations unless its own members practised abstinence from that which was the root cause of these problems.

The Army would not judge people who see no harm in drinking in moderation. However, in a society where much social and business interaction revolve around alcohol, a positive stance is made by Salvationists that it is not necessary to rely on alcohol to feel confident, communicate with others or enjoy oneself.

Le’t me make one thing perfectly clear. I respect the Salvation Army. I like the fact that donations don’t go out to pay for “over-inflated” executive salaries (I heard a figure of 90% somewhere, will go to helping others). I respect the fact that they help the homeless, drunks, etc., get on their feet. Give them a purpose. That they have red kettle collections at Christmas. That they don’t judge people who drink in moderation. That they need to set an example for the people they help.

Just as I respect the Mennonites and Quakers for their views and efforts on peace.

I just draw the line when some Christian group feels they have the “correct” viewpoint or perspective for ALL Christians - or all people. Especially if their viewpoint is NOT held by the majority of Christians (but I look the other way for folks giving alternatives to ECT).

Meanwhile, back to the Nerd Zen Koan - What weighs more: an empty 32GB flash drive or a fully loaded 32GB flash drive?

Hermano · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Cindy, you say,

…but I must respectfully disagree. Putrefaction is a technical term for the decay of organic matter.

Technically, there are two types:

“Fermentation”–when the environment is anaerobic (without oxygen)
“Respiration”–in an aerobic environment (in the presence of oxygen).

Cindy, you say,

Here is an entire free book you should find interesting and informative (and perhaps corrective):

Cindy says,

I agree. We must discern truth from error by the Spirit. So here, let me argue that ethanol (what we call “drinking alcohol”) is a toxin. (A toxin is ‘any poison produced by an organism.’) And if alcohol is a poison, I ask again, would “The Author of Life” (Acts 3:15) —produce, consume, and promote something that could be harmful to us?

(But wait. Let me anticipate various people’s comments. “Is alcohol really a toxin???” And, “If it was good enough for Jesus, Martin Luther, and C.S. Lewis, it’s good enough for me.” This, mercifully, should be my final comment on this post.)

Here is someone “in the know” who clearly states that alcohol is indeed a toxin: David Nutt is professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and chair of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. He writes:

“The myth of a safe level of drinking is a powerful claim. It is one that many health professionals appear to believe in and that the alcohol industry uses to defend its strategy of making the drug readily available at low prices. However, the claim is wrong and the supporting evidence flawed.

There is no safe dose of alcohol for these reasons:

• Alcohol is a toxin that kills cells such as microorganisms, which is why we use it to preserve food and sterilise skin, needles etc. Alcohol kills humans too. A dose only four times as high as the amount that would make blood levels exceed drink-driving limits in the UK can kill. The toxicity of alcohol is worsened because in order for it to be cleared from the body it has to be metabolised to acetaldehyde, an even more toxic substance. Any food or drink contaminated with the amount of acetaldehyde that a unit of alcohol produces would be immediately banned as having an unacceptable health risk.
• Although most people do not become addicted to alcohol on their first drink, a small proportion do. As a clinical psychiatrist who has worked with alcoholics for more than 30 years, I have seen many people who have experienced a strong liking of alcohol from their very first exposure and then gone on to become addicted to it. We cannot at present predict who these people will be, so any exposure to alcohol runs the risk of producing addiction in some users.
• The supposed cardiovascular benefits of a low level of alcohol intake in some middle-aged men cannot be taken as proof that alcohol is beneficial. To do that one would need a randomised trial where part of this group drink no alcohol, others drink in small amounts and others more heavily. Until this experiment has been done we don’t have proof that alcohol has health benefits. A recent example of where an epidemiological association was found not to be true when tested properly was hormone replacement therapy. Population observations suggested that HRT was beneficial for post-menopausal women, but when controlled trials were conducted it was found to cause more harm than good.
• For all other diseases associated with alcohol there is no evidence of any benefit of low alcohol intake – the risks of accidents, cancer, ulcers etc rise inexorably with intake.

Hopefully these observations will help bring some honesty to the debate about alcohol, which kills up to 40,000 people a year in the UK and over 2.25 million worldwide in the latest 2011 WHO report.

We must not allow apologists for this toxic industry to pull the wool over our eyes with their myth of a safe alcohol dose, however appealing it might be to all us so-called “safe” drinkers. Remember these words of a man whose great family wealth and influence was built on illegal alcohol:

“The great enemy of the truth, is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” John F Kennedy

(Source here)

Blessings to all of you, whether we agree or not!

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Just a brief commentary on the toxin aspect:

From Alcohol is a Drug. Is it also a Toxin or Poison?, Dr. Hanson says this:

In a Quora article Could alcohol be classified as a poison or toxin?, one scientist says this:

So what is happening here? We are both quoting men and women of science, who probably have M.D. or PhD degrees in Medicine , chemistry, biochemistry, etc. But the question is this. Does the overall scientific literature label alcohol as a toxin? If so:

What is the definition?
What is the level needed to be considered a toxin?
Under what circumstances does it become a toxin?

It would be interesting to use the online resources of the College of Dupage, to conduct a keyword research regarding the scientific literature on this aspect.

But as the Quora answer pointed out, many over the counter and prescription drugs can be toxic.

As far as wine questions go, there is a winery called Lynfred Winery in Roselle, Il. - about 20 minutes from me. They can answer any wine questions that come up, regarding the current making of wine.

Meanwhile, back to the Nerd Zen Koan - What weighs more: an empty 32GB flash drive or a fully loaded 32GB flash drive?

Paidion · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

You are quite right in saying that ethanol is a poison. But so is sodium chloride (common salt). I have used it to kill slugs. Over consumption in human beings can raise blood pressure to a dangerous level. But does that mean that we shouldn’t consume it in reasonable quantities in order to better enjoy some foods? Jesus said, “Salt is good.” (Mark 9:50, Luke 14:34)

The same with ethanol. If we consume alcoholic beverages in reasonable amounts, it is harmless. Let’s face the facts. The Author of Life did change water into wine, for consumption at the wedding at Cana, and it was a wine of a higher quality than that which they had been drinking. They would not have considered it to be a better wine if it had been mere grape juice.

Dani · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

I do not think that we can compair the consumation of alcohol with salt.
Salt is not toxic if used in the right amount. It is essetial for our body for we need it
and cannot produce it ourselves so we have to get it inside our body from outside with our nutrition.
If we do not, we die!
If we do not put alcohol into our body nothing bad happens…

Shalom and Agape
Dani

stuartd · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

the best response I can think of is from the simpsons movie, where the dome is being placed over the town by the EPA. The drunks come out of the pub
(next door to the church) the christians come out of the church, the pub patrons run into the church to pray, the christians run into the pub for a drink

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Oh, no! Another lost soul! I better sidetrack for a moment and show this video: Simpsons’s CERN Illuminati Mathematical Predictive Programming EXPOSED. For the benefit of everyone, here is a link to the YouTube channel of The Vigilant Christian

Meanwhile, back to the Nerd Zen Koan - What weighs more: an empty 32GB flash drive or a fully loaded 32GB flash drive?

Agnostic_Gabe · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

He ingested 170 grams of sodium. That is impossible to accidentally do. That is equivalent to around 2 pounds of table salt.

Do this. Measure out 5 grams of table salt and put it into a glass of 8oz of water. Drink it. Then ask yourself how you would manage to eat over 50 times that!

The average person takes in about 3grams of sodium per day which is equivalent to roughly 8 grams of table salt.

Salt is only harmful when taken in deliberate quantities. Apparently this was a form a suicide in China.

Salt can be compared to water, not alcohol.