quote:What about vegetarianism? I believe it is the only course for the Christian. Is it right for us to take the life of one of God's creatures to satisfy our appetite? Not when there is an abundance of other foods to eat. We are admonished to live as if in heaven now. Will there be any death in heaven? No, even the animals will not kill to eat. The lamb will lie down next to the lion. So we ought to be more gentle that the brute creation, don't you think? If we do not overcome an appetite for flesh in this life will we crave it in the Exodus as did the children of Israel fleeing Egypt? Those who do not overcome will not be admitted into heaven for God says, "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain."
Jeff, my brother, I gotta disagree with you on this one although I do respect anyone's liberty to avoid meat. Didn't Jesus serve fish to his friends? Didn't the apostles address the meat issue?
By your same line of reasoning, one could say that since people in eternity don't marry, then we shouldn't do so either.
In the outlying areas around Richmond and especially in central VA, there are many deer populations which would take over if not thinned out. I dread driving through those parts after dark.
(Ha! Is this topic addressing Arian Vegans? Vegetari-Arian-ism!)
Following your logic for deer hunting...[chuckle] So when do we call open season on party hosts? Did you know only 1% of all motor vehicle casualties in Virginia are attributable to deer while some 40% of fatalities are alcohol related? (See quotations below)
Regarding marriage...didn't Paul write for married men to live as though they were single and for single men not to marry? He advised only those who could not control themselves to marry, didn't he? Better to marry than burn? But he encourage singleness to the Lord because the time was short. Hummmm?
And, didn't Jesus say regarding fleeing Jerusalem in 70AD to pray that both your flight be not in the winter or on the Sabbath day and that woe be unto those with children and babies?
The point is this: God created mankind as free moral agents. This means they were given the right to choose. Man chose to sin. But, since God knows all things He was prepared. And even though He knew the great cost of sin to the Godhead He still chose to create man. The point is that God will not now revoke our right to choose. If God does anything to limit our choice then in that act He denies Himself.
Some believe that the only way God is going to have perfect humans in heaven is that He is going to have to take away their freedom of choice. But how can this be? There must be another way. Else, we will be robots in heaven. We must retain our freedom of choice. If so, then God can only take people to heaven who can be trusted. The only way they can be trusted is if they have proved themselves here on earth during their probationary time.
So while the righteousness by which we are justified is imputed to us and is surely our key to heaven, the righteousness of Christ which is imparted to us is for our sanctification and determines our fitness for heaven. (See 2Pet1:4; Romans5:9,10). Think of it in this way. Your parents may have paid your college tuition, but it was up to you to use it wisely. So too, the blood of Jesus has purchased for us that which we could not obtain. Don't forget that Christ died for every person in the same way He died for you and I. (See 2Cor5:14,15; John3:16). Yet, will everyone be saved? Why not? Because they didn't believe and confess? Yes, those, but even some who believe and confess will also be lost because they did not want to wear the robe of righteousness which Jesus purchased for them. Their faith was dead.
So then, if I have made my point, it remains for us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling lest we should in some way fall short of any promise left to us. The Holy Spirit is always teaching us to live soberly and godly in this present age. (See Titus 2:11-14). This present age is our period of probation. It is the testing time of our character. (See 1Peter1:7). Adam and Eve had a probationary time yet they failed. Christ had a probationary time as a man but He did not fail. He set an example for us by overcoming sin. (See Romans 8:1-4).
Now, I do not say that you must stop eating meat as a condition of salvation. But, doesn't it make sense that we would want to live now in a manner worthy of heaven? Can you honestly say that you would not give up everything earthly to attain heaven? Jesus said it is better to enter into heaven maimed than to go into hell with the whole body. Sometimes we feel we cannot live without some of our cherished habits. Giving them up would be to us like cutting off the hand or plucking out the eye. Yet, in the symbolic sense, rather than the literal, it is profitable. We should give up anything that may deter us from anxiously desiring to leave this world. Jesus must have our heart.
I challenge you to give up everything that is not best for you and thereby enter into the sufferings of Christ by denying self. Alcohol, tobacco, sugar, coffee, tea, pork, and maybe other things too. Don't we already do something very similar during Lenten season? Why just 40 days? Why not give it up entirely if it is not healthy for you?
(Just in case anyone is wondering about my faith. Seventh-day Adventist advocate a healthy lifestyle which includes a vegetarian diet and no alcohol, tobacco, coffee, or tea. But there are Adventist who do use these items. And, yes, some even smoke in secret. It is not a condition of our faith. But where the Lord has strictly forbidden something, like unclean meats, then the continued use of those articles is viewed as disobedience to God's commands. And we all know the counsel Paul gives about not associating with a professing Christians who walks disorderly, not according to the doctrines of Christ. Their continued influence in the body may lead others to be emboldened to disobey other commands.)
quote:Damage and Human Safety – Vehicle accidents involving deer are responsible for less than 1% of all motor vehicle casualties in Virginia. An average of 2 fatalities and over 400 injuries are attributed to deer-vehicle accidents annually.
Since the early 1990s, Virginia hunters have killed approximately 200,000 deer annually, 40% of which were does.
Statistics from Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
quote:Did you know that nearly 40 percent of all traffic fatalities in Virginia are alcohol-related? The best defense against alcohol-related accidents is to plan ahead and to provide alternatives that can prevent people from driving under the influence. The intent of this page is to offer party and event planners some strategies to plan for a successful event. By following these tips, we hope your event will remain a cherished memory for years to come.
Imagine that! The state of Virginia peddles booze which are responsible for 40% of all traffic fatalities. Maybe that is the states method for thinning the human population and thereby reducing diseases among homo sapiens. Now, what would happen if only deer hunters were involved in alcohol related accidents? The state would have quite a dilemma?
posted
Jeff, Didn't Jesus serve fish to his friends? Didn't the apostles address the meat issue? Are we wiser than they?
The context of 1 Cor 7 is "in the present distress" and "I suppose" rather than having a specific "word from the Lord." Elsewhere he ordained that the younger widows marry and have children. To the writer of Hebrews marriage was honorable.
It is true that most deer/auto accidents don't result in fatalites - of the humans, that is. Most deer just bounce off and keep going. Still they are way too thick and many of us depend upon the tasty deer meat when veggies don't grow locally.
(In the early 1900's deer were so scarce in nearby Farmville, that it was considered newsworthy to even see a large buck.)
Let's look at the alcohol thing in a seperate thread. See ya, bro!
posted
Diet is a fascinating topic in the Bible! Have you noticed there are 7 or more diets, some long-term (Mosaic diet) some short term (Daniel diet) and others for evangelistic emergencies (Jesus' "eat what they serve" liberty diet)?
I've studied this a lot, and feel that the institution of meat-eating by God after the flood had significance: in a greatly more polluted world we needed to eat animal products, and in a more spiritually corrupted world we needed even more understanding that "a blood sacrifice is necessary that I might live."
Vegetarianism, especially Veganism, has an intial boost in health as the body detoxifies, but many, many people are having horrible health problems after eating that way for a number of years.
For God's prescription, read Exodus. Virtually everything that serious long-term researchers such as Weston A Price, Jordan Rubin (author of the Maker's diet) and others discover tells us that God knew what he was talking about!
My health was very severely compromised by a vegetarian type diet - 5 years ago I was carrying 12 different clinic cards and constantly miserable. Since converting to the Exodus diet, my entire family has only had one episode of ANY illness requiring medical care - and that was brought on by eating commercial food on a road trip! I've gone from being a debilitated couch potato to being a full-time farmer.
Lamb, Milk and Honey are God's healing food. Not commercial, but real, raw, non-toxic forms. Buy raw from a local farmer today!
Blessings, Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
Most of the problems arise from application. Good cooks are truly few. They take great care in making the meat tender and juicy and palatable but don't know how to or don't care to prepare vegetables in the same manner. Most meat eaters think vegetarians eat only salads. How often have I been offered a salad of iceberg lettuce and a few tomatoes as a meal at restaurants. Or perhaps a plate of pasta-nothingness. How can my body create healthy tissues from such meager rations?
As one writer states:
quote:The laws of the physical system are indeed the laws of God; but this fact seems to have been forgotten. Some have limited themselves to a diet that cannot sustain them in health. They have not provided nourishing food to take the place of injurious articles; and they have not considered that tact and ingenuity must be exercised in preparing food in the most healthful manner. The system must be properly nourished in order to perform its work. It is contrary to health reform, after cutting off the great variety of unwholesome dishes, to go to the opposite extreme, reducing the quantity and quality of the food to a low standard. Instead of health reform this is health deform.
So then the proverbial question follows..."What do vegetarians eat?" Honest, many meat eaters don't know anything but meat and potatoes. I can understand their dilemma. But if the truth be known the variety available to the vegetarian far exceeds that of the carnivore. Herbs, fruits, nuts, beans, roots, vegetables, etc, etc, etc...
Say, where do you suppose the meat eater gets his nourishment? From the meat of course. But what did that animal eat to produce that meat? Why, vegetables, of course. So in reality the vegetarian chews his own vegetables and gets them firsthand while the meat eaters' vegetables are pre-chewed and digested. He still gets them but secondhand. And if the animal is diseased then perhaps he will get some of that on his plate as well. So if you eat meat make sure you spend the little extra to get the very best.
I wonder if anyone has every done a study to see if meat eaters prefer to get their religion from the pastor's mouth while vegetarians prefer to chew the word for themselves? Odd parody.
You didn't address the issue of "God said eat meat." ?
The "Hallelujah diet" ignores that God did not stop giving instructions after Genesis 3.
I agree with you on this: it is life-or-death in these times for us to a secure, clean, nourishing food supply, and to learn to prepare it in healing, traditional ways.
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
God did not stop giving instructions after Genesis 3. But consider this. Those first instructions were given to a perfect pair in a perfect garden. God had to make many concessions for mankind to meet their fallen condition. But when it got so bad He destroyed the world with a flood and saved only 8 persons out of the waters. It was at this time that Noah was allowed to eat meat. But only the meat of clean animals.
The Bible begins with a perfect couple and a perfect world and end with a spotless bride and a new earth without the blemish of sin. In between we see the travels of man in the wilderness. But we are not to remain in that wilderness forever. Our destruction was progressive and our salvation is also progressive. We cannot sit on the time-line anywhere in scripture and be growing. We must move toward the similitude of Christ and the company of angelic hosts.
The Lord has made and continues to make concessions for mankind. How else do you deal with a rebellious child? When the will of the child is so determined to go in a wrong path what course does a parent have but to yield hoping the lessons will be learned without loss of life. You try to guide your children aright but in the end you cannot force their will or they will harden their hearts in rebellion.
Many times God has winked at man's sin. Many patriarchs had multiple wives yet this was not God's plan. But it had become so entrenched in society of the day that God allowed it.
The Lord gave the children of Israel manna to eat but when they lamented their condition in the wilderness and cried out for the fleshpots of Egypt the Lord sent hoards of quails for them to feast upon. They gorged themselves and the anger of the Lord was kindled against them and many died while the flesh was still in their mouths--before they even had time to chew it.
Later God gave them the Ten Commandments written on two tables of stone so they would be painfully aware of sin. Many are confused by the language in the Bible and believe that the giving of the law caused an increase of sin. However, I think the thought presented is that the people were not aware of their sin and when the law was given their sins were made known to them. Paul wrote in Romans 7 that he had not known sin but by the law. And, the purpose of the law was to bring us to Christ. What better way to bring someone to Christ than to present Him as their savior from the consequences of sin. But in order for them to be aware of their need of Christ they must first know the definition of sin. The Ten Commandments succinctly accomplishes this.
So, yes, our diet has changed but only to accomodate the sinful world and nature of man.
BTW, did you know that Adventists advocate a vegetarian diet and that this group is the most widely studied group in matter pertaining to health? In fact, I am participating in a health study right now. The average Adventist lives about 10 years longer than his counterpart. There is nothing wrong with a strictly vegetarian diet. Again, the application is where most people fail. They eat too sparingly of the good things or of poorly cooked things.
And, in an example of "put your money where your mouth is"-- after a few months on the vegetarian diet I benefited in many ways. Lost weight, heart rate down from 84 to 60 bpm, blood pressure down to 112/70, etc. And my life insurance company doubled my benefit amount without raising my premium because after medical examination and testing I qualified as an Healthy American. This is like the top 2% of Americans.
Another group in Weimar has actually taken people off of the insulin by regulating their diet. I know they strongly advocate a vegetarian diet as well. They have had many wonderful success stories which are posted on their web site. http://www.newstart.com/
You talked about two men who advocated another type of diet. Well, I am not too impressed with human wisdom or titles. Just look at the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory. Some of the so-called brightest minds are proponents of these theories. But God will lay the wisdom of man in the dust. A person must be first consecrated to God before they are qualified to speak true wisdom. What I accept must align with scripture and be of sound reasoning. So I am not inclined to follow something easily though I know we are all tempted to accept something because it agrees with our lifestyle.
But I am glad for any progress toward a healthier lifestyle even if it includes meat and dairy. So I would be interested to learn more about the things most important to you regarding health. Can you share some?
posted
Hey Jeff, Cigarettes, cigars – are they not just some sort of vegetables in a roll? What is smoking anyway? How about sniffing aroma of cook foods and of incense or candles? How about chewing them? Coffee, tea, coca – are they not from plants? What’s the difference between tea and vegetable soup? Wine is just fermented grape juice. The Bible says "Give strong drink to him who is perishing and wine to him whose life is bitter. Let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his trouble no more..." Marijuana is a plant which I don’t see any instruction on consuming such in the Bible and it’s just been legalized as a prescribed drug in Canada. So how do we judge? p.s. No sarcasm here. I simply can't figure out. Pls share your thought.
Well, it's quite simple, actually, with regard to what to smoke or eat. I would first check to see if a huge non-profit organization exists to educate and fight against its use or if it is prohibited by law.
For example:
Smoking - American Lung Association American Heart Association American Cancer Society
Alcohol - American Heart Association Womens Heart Foundation
I am sure that candle smoke and improper soup processing can also cause diseases but I didn't find huge nonprofit organizations fighting that cause.
Basically, you must exercise some good, common, sense. If you have none, then ask someone you trust who does have some. (grin)
But as Christians, we should ask whether or not it will glorify God. Jesus said our good works would glorify God. But how do we glorify God by smoking or drinking? Haven't even men determined that they are harmful to the body. Do you then think that God is ignorant of the harmful effects? Both are considered vices and are fast becoming socially unacceptable. Can someone who is experiencing an "out-of-mind" experience glorify the God who created man noble, pure, and with great reasoning powers--entrusted with the power of choice?
quote:AHA- Are there cardiovascular risks associated with drinking alcohol?
Drinking too much alcohol can raise the levels of some fats in the blood (triglycerides) (tri-GLIS'er-idz). It can also lead to high blood pressure, heart failure and an increased calorie intake. (Consuming too many calories can lead to obesity and a higher risk of developing diabetes.) Excessive drinking and binge drinking can lead to stroke. Other serious problems include fetal alcohol syndrome, cardiomyopathy (kar"de-o-mi-OP'ah-the), cardiac arrhythmia (ah-RITH'me-ah) and sudden cardiac death.
quote: I would first check to see if a huge non-profit organization exists to educate and fight against its use or if it is prohibited by law
But there are a lot of things these non-profit organizations do or allowed by law are against the Lord. No doubt scientific researches prove that smoking causes all kinds of cancer and alcohol causes heart diseases but how much did we human actually know and only to find out 500 years later that we were wrong. The Bible says the Lord will keep those who obey from calamity and illness. So the bottom line is still whether the Bible says no regarding those things. And just to set the record straight, I tend to agree with you on the accounts of unclean meats and vegetarians in the new heaven and new earth. Isn’t enjoying the aroma of burnt incense very similar to smoking? Are they not just different types of leaves? Drinking, in moderation in the right circumstances and for the right person was not described as sin in the Bible. The Nazarites were allowed to drink wine after fulfilling his vow. Timothy was encouraged to drink a little for his stomach’s sake. Researches, yes, depending on which one you trust, have shown that red wine does much good for health.
quote:Haven't even men determined that they are harmful to the body. Do you then think that God is ignorant of the harmful effects? Both are considered vices and are fast becoming socially unacceptable.
Again, men determine a lot of things and many in Canada have determined that gay marriage is lawful and speaking against gay is considered vices and has become socially unacceptable. Well, it doesn’t make me think that God now agrees with such.
quote:Basically, you must exercise some good, common, sense. If you have none, then ask someone you trust who does have some.
Unfortunately my common sense and many I respected and trusted have betrayed me much – My common sense was molded in an era when smoking was a sociable thing even in RC fathers and Protestant pastors circles and I was deceived that RC was the only way by my dear RC fathers and godfather.
quote:But as Christians, we should ask whether or not it will glorify God.
I trust the following would which includes strong drink and wine:
quote:And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Again, I’m in agreement with you on the meat things…
You took that "common sense" remark very well. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark meant to express the idea that everyone has some common sense. And God will give us more (wisdom) if we just ask. I am glad to see your skin is a little tougher than most.
It is a fact that in the 1800's smoking was considered very healthful. Since that time we have learned differently.
There is another principle at work here. We should let nothing have the mastery over us. Drugs such as alcohol and tobacco certainly can exercise that power over most. If you don't believe me, just ask them to stop. They will say, "I can stop any time I want." But can they? Will they? Some. But it is very hard. The most common excuse is, "I don't want to. I like it." I know that I tried many times to stop but was unable until I gave my heart to Christ and learned that my body was not my own to do with as I pleased.
Here are the Bible verses to support the principle.
quote: 1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Nothing should have the mastery over us. Not even wholesome items. We must be willing to give up anything that might come between us and God. Having something we love too much, even an inanimate object, can be a stumbling block. We must learn to yield everything or else we leave a door open for temptation.
Again, we don't want to be servants to anything but the Lord. When that little weed calls many respond. They get the shakes if they don't. Here we see that anything that we obey becomes our master.
quote: Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Now don't stumble on these verses simply because of the context. There is a wider principle at work. And anything that comes between God and man is sin. Sin is defined as breaking the law of God. Well, wouldn't that include all of God's laws--including health, gravity, etc? Breaking the law of gravity would probably result in more immediate death. Yet, there are other forms of self-murder which just take a bit longer to work.
God says He will destroy those who destroy His creation.
Those who destroy the earth--
quote: Re 11:18 ... and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets... and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
And those who destroy their bodies which are the temple of God--
quote: 1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
There is one last thing I want to touch upon. I hope I am misundertanding you about the part where you seemed to suggest that we could smoke and drink because God protects His own from disease. You said it this way. "The Bible says the Lord will keep those who obey from calamity and illness. So the bottom line is still whether the Bible says no regarding those things." That statement sounds presumptuous to me. I hope I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. It would be very presumptuous on our part to continue to do something we know is hurtful to our bodies while praying for God to protect us from calamity or illness. We would be presuming upon the mercies of God. That borders on commanding God to do something at our direction based upon a promise He made to us. It may be God's will that the healthiest person alive should suffer calamity and illness while the drunken, slothful person lives on. We cannot presume anything. And besides, all of God's promises are conditional upon our obedience (or in some cases, disobedience).
Remember how Jesus responded when the Devil tempted Him to cast Himself off of the high tower? Satan even quoted scripture. "...lest thou dash thy foot." But Jesus responded by quoting Deutoronomy. "(De 6:16) Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah." Do you see how even Jesus would not presume upon His Father's mercy?
We are not even to presume that God will attend our work with increase but are to say, "If God be willing." Read these verses from James 4 again.
quote: 13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. 15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. 16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Well, I've written too much, again. I do hope it helps someone. Praise God for your meek and humble spirit. But I still have so much to share. We can talk latter about overthings besides alcohol and tobacco. We always seem to focus on them but overeating is bad too because it clouds the mind. "The people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play." Sounds so harmless at first. But we'll save that for next time.
posted
Jeff, I disagree that God "accomodates sin".
The logic that he punished their craving for meat doesn't work -- then why did he punish them at the waters of Marah? Surely water is not a sinful desire?
No, it was their ingratitude and lack of trust he punished. "I know you need water -- I will give it to you. I know you need food - I'll give it to you. But why this total lack of faith?" is God's attitude. "After all I've done for you!"
However, I've said my piece. Adventists live longer than most other Americans, who eat commercialized garbage, but peoples who eat meat and dairy on traditional diets live longer yet -- the Japanese, for example. Healthy vegetables are better than Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. But healthy vegetables and animal products are healthier still. At least that's the conclusion of my research - Biblical and extra-biblica.
Abraham lived a very long life eating a nomadic diet. 147 doesn't sound too bad?
Blessings, Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
I don't believe I used the phrase, "accomodates sin." When you quote it as you did you make it appear that you are quoting my words. What I did say was that God allowed our diet to change to accomodate our sinful world and our fallen nature. I think there is a big difference in the two ideas.
With regard to God's punishment for craving meat, the incident at Marah was definitely them not trusting God to provide. They came to the wells but the water was bitter. Whine, whine, whine...
But with the quail it is a bit different. The Lord was already providing the manna so it wasn't as though they needed to trust God to provide their food. No, they were complaining about the food God provided for them because their appetites had been perverted in Egypt. I am not saying it is a sin to eat quail--under the right conditions. But it is a sin to crave it just as it would be a sin to crave broccoli. Craving is almost a demand. Can you imagine them demanding that God give them meat?
I suppose that I would have to agree with you regarding your diet plan on one condition--most people do not know how to be vegetarian. For those people it is better for them to eat quality meat than to suffer the effects of poor nutrition. But, in my favor, there really is no excuse for poor nutrition in the land of plenty where grocery stores have choices abundant.
Notice I said "quality" meat. Your typical USDA beef is allowed to be trimmed of any disease and the rest sold. Though I am sure they are tightening that since the latest scares.
posted
Jeff, No, what I meant was God protects those who obey Him and I wanted to know if smoking and drinking were in fact acts of disobedience. No, I'm not for smoking but I find burning incense and enjoying the aroma is very similar in concept. However, I do believe turning incense stick into a burning roll and inhale into one's lung would do the same harm if not worse. Drinking wine, not sure if you missed the verse I quoted, is in fact a way of giving thanks and learning to fear God. Well, the Bible also tells us that drinking excessively is no good. So just because someone drink too much and give bad examples doesn't render drinking itself a sin. No offense but I just don't understand why some churches, including yours and a few others I respect, would present drinking as something not pleasing the Lord rather than something to proceed with caution. Drinking tea, however, is the one area that I think the adventists are wrong. Is tea dismissed solely because it contains caffeine? Can one ignore the fact that varieties of green, black and herb tea are beneficial to human body and help to prevent cancers and heart diseases?
Ok, so I am just a bit confused here. You believe that incense, if smoked, would do the same harm as tobacco. So you admit that tobacco is harmful to the lungs. We've already learned that our bodies are not our own but the temple of God. And, that whoever defiles the temple of God him will God destroy. (1 Cor3:16-17). So for you it would be sin to smoke, since you know not to. "(Jas 4:17) Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." This is not said in condemnation of those who do smoke. But rather, here is a Biblical truth which can set us free from that slavery. I think God wants everyone to be both free and healthy, right?
What about wine? Well, many have said, "Do all things in moderation." It is true that gluttony is sin. So even partaking of something good and needful to the body in excess is sin. But can we apply this same principle of moderation to alcohol? No, the rules change. Food in moderation is beneficial and has no harmful side-effects. However, we cannot say the same for alcohol. Even a small amount of alcohol is harmful--though in a smaller way than large quantities. So there is no Biblical principle which allows us to partake of something that is harmful even in moderation.
Yes, I did see the verse you quoted. But we have a parting further up the road. You see, I don't believe that the wine spoken of in scripture is necessarily fermented in the same sense that our wine is today. I don't believe that Jesus, who created man in His image, actually produced alcoholic beverage from pure, life-giving water. Rather, I believe the Bible is very plain that the best wine was the freshest and the worser wine was beginning to ferment and turn to vinegar (Old French: vyn egre "sour wine"). Remember, they had no refrigerators in that day so something would spoil quickly in the heat.
The only reason we have trouble with this verse is because our appetites are perverted. We like sharp cheese, bitter beer, hot spices, sour candies, and 80% proof. We tend to think that the longer the beverage ages the better it becomes. Scotch is one example. So when scripture uses language like "best until last," our mind quickly thinks of something that is very strong of alcohol. Why couldn't it simply be talking about something fresher than any human has ever tasted before? After all, our Creator, who ever desires to restore us to His image, was the One who produced it. To think that Jesus would tempt someone to drunkenness by producing great vats of alcoholic drink just is wrong thinking and places Him on a level with the lowest of human beings who are ever working to demoralize their fellowman and cause him to sink lower. Even on the cross when He thirsted greatly and called for drink He refused the sour wine (vyn egre).
Now, as to whether or not it is sin. We know it is sin to drink too much. We have just finished reasoning above that there is no moderation principle for alcohol and that alcohol causes damage by degrees. So wouldn't partaking of it be against God's will for us. And, isn't going against God's will sin? It may be hard for us to see this at first because society embraces alcohol. But how does God feel about it? Alcohol is related to some 40% of all traffic fatalities in Virginia. And this from the CDC.
quote: Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1) and is associated with multiple adverse health consequences, including liver cirrhosis, various cancers, unintentional injuries, and violence. To analyze alcohol-related health impacts, CDC estimated the number of alcohol-attributable deaths (AADs) and years of potential life lost (YPLLs) in the United States during 2001. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that approximately 75,766 AADs and 2.3 million YPLLs, or approximately 30 years of life lost on average per AAD, were attributable to excessive alcohol use in 2001.
Now to those who promote the idea that Jesus created alcoholic drink I ask, do you really suppose to suggest that Jesus would associate Himself with these statistics in any form or fashion? Really now! What are you accusing our Creator of doing? Contributing to the delinquency, deaths, disease, illness, and domestic violence in the world? And, leaving an example as this to last for millennium? 75k+ deaths in one year!! And, 2,300,000 potential years of life lost! Wow! "For God so loved the world" that He gave Jesus so that we "should NOT perish, but have everlasting life!"
Regarding Adventists and tea. We believe that caffeinated tea is a stimulant and is not only unnecessary but is also harmful. However, the herb teas are not classed in that category. If there is a beneficial side to drinking black tea then perhaps we can find something safer which has the same properties. Why drink something which contains a small amount of poison just on the chance that there may be some evidence we may benefit from it at the same time? Are we so limited in our choices that we must resort to such compromise?
Speaking of compromise. How many times have I heard this said. "He teaches a lot of error but I sift it out and keep only the truth." Is that safe? But I hear the same logic here regarding tea. So I ask, are you able to drink harmful tea and sift out the poisons keeping only the beneficial portion? No, of course not. Just as listening to error will have its influence on us, so will drinking poison. The real problem is that both are an insidious poison. The effect is so imperceptible that we don't even realize the harm until perhaps it is too late.
Well, these are my beliefs but I share them with the hope that they will be of some value to you. After all, we are to present ourselves a living sacrifice. God does not accept blemished or imperfect sacrifices.
May "the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
posted
Jeff, What I was trying to say was: we benefit from all things God provides – if used properly. Burning incense is good (the Bible says so) while smoking, I believe it’s human perversion, is not. I’m not sure if tobacco is classified as incense though. Wine – I did a quick search of the original languages in the Bible. Well, the word used in Gen 9:21 & 19:32 is the same word used in Deu 14:23 & Prov 31:6 and in many other places in OT. The word used in Mat 9:17 is the same word in John 2:10 & 1 Tim 5:23 and in many other places in NT. The word “drunk” in John 2:10 actually means “drunk”. The fact is, Jesus did provide more wine after the guests were drunk. Tea – many consider herb tea includes green tea which contains very high level of caffeine. Are you saying green tea is bad just because it contains caffeine?
God provides the fresh wine from the grape for our good but fermented wine which contain alcohol is caused by the breaking down of the juice and is a direct result of sin. Before sin nothing died and therefore there would have been no decaying matter or fermenting juices. No mold, no carnivores, no noxious fumes, no alcohol. So in effect you are saying that God provides spoiling juice for our good? That's not right!
The word "drunk" in John 2:10 does not refer to "being drunk with alcohol" but rather is the past participle of "to drink." There is nothing in the context which can lead us to the conclusion that the guests were intoxicated with alcohol. There are many reasons for this.
1. In context the word is used to convey the idea that a good guest offers his best wine to his guests first and once they have been well satisfied, having well drunk, the lesser wine is served.
2. The use of the phrase "well drunk" is cited as an example of proper etiquette and is not in any way addressing the current state of the guests at this party.
3. The language employed is not speaking of the guests being drunk, as in "being well drunk," but rather of the quantity available to them, as in "having well drunk." It is not referring to a state of physical being, but rather a quantity.
Contemporary writers of the period point out that the "good wine" was unfermented and even partaking of that in large and/or undiluted quantities was considered barbaric. Some times the fresh wine was diluted as much as 20 part water to one part wine. It was either boiled or filtered to preserve it. (See the writings of Pliny the Elder "Natural History", and Plutarch.)
One scholarly gentlemen, Sam Bacchiocchi, has done extensive research and draws some very persuasive conclusions in his work titled, "Wine in the Bible." He notes,
quote:The gradual abandonment of total abstinence by many well-meaning Christians has been encouraged by the belief that the Bible sanctions a moderate use of alcoholic beverages. This belief has provided millions of Christians with an alleged biblical justification for drinking alcohol.
And what has been the result? The author gives his summation.
quote:Alcoholic beverages have become America’s number one public health problem, costing over $117 billion a year and claiming at least 100,000 lives per year, 25 times as many as all illegal drugs combined.
He blames the churches, in part, for the epidemic of crime, violence, and death caused by alcohol.
quote:Christian churches are partly responsible for the alcohol epidemic raging in America today, because since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, most of them have abandoned their stand for total abstinence, encouraging instead moderation in drinking. Moderation has led millions to become immoderate drinkers.
Today we think of wine in only one state: fermented. We wrongly accept the more common definition of wine as the only definition. The thought that the word wine can refer to freshly squeezed grape juice escapes the modern mind. But older English dictionaries cite both fermented and unfermented grape juice as wine. And, as pointed out earlier, the contemporaries of the time also wrote of each as wine using the expression "good wine" to refer to that which was preserved from spoiling.
I'm not sure how scholarly you wish to get. You seemed to be looking into some of the word meanings and cross-referencing verses. Is it your desire to find out the truth or would you prefer status quo? We can dig much deeper into the usage of words and the correct meaning of wine in the English language. But if your mind is set already then perhaps we both have better things to do. It's up to you. But I think we should start another topic since this deters somewhat from the current topic.
BTW, this topic falls under the subtopic "True Spirituality." As such, did you cite a beneficial reason for drinking alcohol? If not, can you give one--something that gives glory to God rather than simply satisfying a craving? Personally, the only reasons I have heard for drinking alcohol are to 'wind down' or 'loosen up.' Seems it is used to free us of our inhibitions, take our minds away from our troubles, calm our nerves. Firstly, does a Christian need to be inhibited? To be inhibited means not able to act spontaneously or speak loosely.
Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
posted
Sorry Jeff, I know you meant good saying Christians should not consume alcohol and cigarettes. And yes I know this thread is about spirituality. And yes I appreciate the articles and authors you quoted. And yes I know Christians shouldn’t do things that cause little ones to stumble. However, you can’t ignore the fact that a. the Greek word for “drunk” as in John 2:10 can only mean “drunk with alcohol” whether 2000 years ago or now. b. likewise, the Greek word for “wine” always means fermented drinks. c. the same word “wine” that got Noah and Lot drunk and did silly things was the same “wine” Israelites were commanded to drink before the Lord. To say that “wine” in the scriptures were unfermented juices is wrong. To compromise the Word in order to avoid little ones from stumbling is also wrong. Why don’t we let them understand the truth and trust the Spirit to guide them? On the other hand, the world will continue to choose what they like to do regardless of what the Bible says.
I can't help but feel that you are not defending the word of God so much as defending your own vice. If you promote moderation and I promote abstinence then surely we are biased in the same direction.
There is no reason for the moderate use of alcohol. Should abstinence be practised it would not impair the health but promote it. A person could live an entire lifetime without consuming alcohol and suffer no ill-effect from it. Its consumption cannot be classed with harmless foods which should be used in moderation.
I am not sure where you are getting your information but the conclusion you draw about wine in scripture are incorrect. Even secular people seem more wise than some Christians in this respect. They admit the harmful effects of alcohol but still choose to drink while Christians use scripture to justify their drinking.
"The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light."
There is a close relationship between the physical body and the mind. If we only realized how important it is to preserve our minds for this is the channel through which God approaches us. The Devil uses the senses and emotions to cloud the mind thus blocking the way for Jesus to enter our hearts and minds. If our minds can be clouded by any means then the enemy of God is served. I offered a neighbor an alcohol-free beer once and his reply was, "What's the point in drinking it?" What is the point in drinking alcohol? It is to numb the mind by degrees.
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
posted
Hey Jeff, No, I don't have anything to defend for myself in those areas. If anything, I used to hold the same understanding as you do - until I come to study the Bible without prejudice. I'm just stating the facts and the information is from none other than the Bible. I thought I have provided evidences that wine means fermented drinks rather than fruit juices and I have also stated "drunk" means "drunk". You may want to check with any Hebrew and/or Greek speaking people to verify that and yes, I did. I was expecting you to point out where I was wrong in the context. Well, I am kind of disappointed.
Sorry to hear you were disappointed. I cited many contemporary authors of the time, a scholarly work, scripture, and reasoned concerning the very character of Jesus. You say you've come to your current conclusion after study of the Bible without prejudice. Prejudice of whom? The drunk or Jesus? Because your conclusion leaves the drunk in the clear while portraying your Savior in the worst light. He who prayed, "Lead us not into temptation," you have concluded has actually led a whole wedding party into temptation to indulge in drunken frivolity. Not only making good wine, but as you conclude, the best (strongest) wine.
We should look at the weight of evidence: 1) Jesus created all things and therefore has knowledge of how all of our body parts function and rely upon each other 2) The church is likened unto the body with each part interdependent upon the others which means a weak, or drunk, part could cause the whole body to suffer 3) Contemporary authors of the time refer to wine as being both fresh juice of the grape and fermented 4) Older dictionaries also define wine as fresh or fermented 5) Alcohol is involved in more than 40% of traffic fatalities 6) Excessive alcohol consumption is the 3rd leading cause of preventable death 7) Alcohol is involved in many crimes in society and the home--child abuse 8) 1 out of 7 people who try alcohol become alcoholic 9) The Surgeon General has placed warnings on alcoholic beverages 10) Common sense tells us to drink in moderation but doesn't account for the fact that alcohol limits our ability to make sound judgments so after the first drink common sense is also affected 11) The DMV has determined that a person is unable to safely operate a vehicle after 2 drinks (6oz wine, 12oz beer, 1oz booze) (.08 bac) 12) Research demonstrates that reflexes and judgment are impaired long before the .08 bac and suggest a .05 bac be adopted as the new standard -- this is a single drink! 13) People drink alcohol for what benefit? To "relax" or feel unihibited? 14) Bible condemns drunkenness and says no drunkard will enter heaven 15) The term "well drunk" in your verse simply means the guests had plenty to drink. It says nothing of their intoxication level. The word "drunk" used is a past particple of "to drink." And it says nothing of the current wedding party but merely cites tradition--this is too obvious and yet you miss it so easily.
Well, I could go on and will if I need to but where is the weight of your evidence? You have presented nothing but a single verse of scripture which you say means that Jesus provided even more wine to those who were already well drunk. I cannot tell you how offensive that is to me for you to suggest that Jesus, who knew no sin, who died to save man from sin, who lived a perfect life, actually tempted drunken people to drink even more and become sloppy drunks. You have not applied the text properly.
I am not sure of your scholarly resource but I would certainly like to learn of it so I can research it for myself and discover the root of the problem. I will gladly provide you any resources you would like to investigate.
Everyone knows that we should never base our faith on a single verse of scripture but we are to look at the Bible as a whole. I think you are basing your belief on a single scripture. "Look," you say, "It says He made wine." Therefore you reason that the wine spoken of must be wine of the type you prescribe. You fail to take into consideration the life work of Jesus to heal the sick, the mission of Jesus to save mankind from the effects of sin and the curse, the ministry of Jesus to raise up men from the depravity all around them, and the fact that He created a perfect world with a perfect, noble, couple. Had it not been for sin we would never have known fermented wine. In your unprejudiced exploration of scripture you must consider not just the literal words but rather how they fit into the plan of redemption of man and in the light of the cross.
quote:So there is no Biblical principle which allows us to partake of something that is harmful even in moderation
and
quote:I don’t believe that the wine spoken of in scripture is necessarily fermented in the same sense that our wine is today.
and
quote:God provides the fresh wine from the grape for our good but fermented wine which contain alcohol is caused by the breaking down of the juice and is a direct result of sin.
This is, together with tithing, dead wrong Adventist teaching! A little Strong’s Concordance here…something that gives glory to God: Deut 14:22-26
quote:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. 23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. 24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household.
Wine in verse 23 is H8492. tiyrowsh, tee-roshe'; or tiyrosh, tee-roshe'; from H3423 in the sense of expulsion; must or fresh grape-juice (as just squeezed out); by impl. (rarely) fermented wine:--(new, sweet) wine. Wine in verse 26, however, is H3196. yayin, yah'-yin; from an unused root mean. to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by impl. intoxication:--banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber]. Strong drink in verse 26 is H7941. shekar, shay-kawr'; from H7937; an intoxicant, i.e. intensely alcoholic liquor:--strong drink, + drunkard, strong wine. H7937 - shakar, shaw-kar'; a prim. root; to become tipsy; in a qualified sense, to satiate with a stimulating drink or (fig.) influence:--(be filled with) drink (abundantly), (be, make) drunk (-en), be merry. [Superlative of H8248.]
You also said
quote:I don’t believe that Jesus, who created man in His image, actually produced alcoholic beverage from pure, lifegiving water.
and
quote:The word “drunk” in John 2:10 does not refer to “being drunk with alcohol”but rather is the past participle of “to drink”. There is nothing in the context which can lead us to the conclusion that the guests were intoxicated with alcohol.
and
quote:The thought that the word wine can refer to freshly squeezed grape juice escapes the modern mind. But older English dictionaries cite both fermented and unfermented grape juice as wine.
Well, another little Strong’s Concordance here… John 2:9-10
quote: 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
Wine in verse 9 & 10 is G3631. oinos, oy'-nos; a prim. word (or perh. of Heb. or. [H3196]); "wine" (lit. or fig.):--wine. Well drunk in verse 10 is G3184. methuo, meth-oo'-o; from another form of G3178; to drink to intoxication, i.e. get drunk:--drink well, make (be) drunk (-en). G3178 - methe, meth'-ay; appar. a prim. word; an intoxicant, i.e. (by impl.) intoxication:--drunkenness.
Wine H3196 and wine G3631 are never translated and do not mean fruit juice. Drunk G3184 always means intoxicated.
You said
quote:Now to those who promoted the idea that Jesus created alcoholic drink I ask, do you really suppose to suggest that Jesus would associate Himself with these statistics in any form or fashion? Really now! What are you accusing our Creator of doing?
God created sex between husband and wife. Should we accuse God of all sex crimes? God created fire so man gets warm and hot food in cold days. Should we accuse God of all fire related disasters? God created many things for His love ones to enjoy. All things can become sinful in the hand of sinful man. Christians, who obey the Spirit, would have self control over things. Those who disobey the Spirit and fall to sin have only themselves to blame.
You said
quote:Because your conclusion leaves the drunk in the clear while portraying your Savior in the worst light…
No, this is clearly the conclusion you drew and said it’s mine. You have done this more than once in this conversation. I’m not sure what your intention is but if you think this tactic would put me in a state of guilt then you’d better stop doing that before I lose respect of you.
There are several period writers around the time of Christ who describe methods for preserving fresh wine. Most involve filtering and boiling. May I suggest...
1. Pliny, Natural History 23, 24, trans. W. H. S. Jones, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961). 2. Plutarch, Symposiac 8, 7.
Hello Chubbena,
In your following statement you make my argument for me that it is sinful man who perverted God's perfect creation.
quote:God created sex between husband and wife. Should we accuse God of all sex crimes? God created fire so man gets warm and hot food in cold days. Should we accuse God of all fire related disasters? God created many things for His love ones to enjoy. All things can become sinful in the hand of sinful man. Christians, who obey the Spirit, would have self control over things. Those who disobey the Spirit and fall to sin have only themselves to blame.
Yes, and let's continue your analogy. God created grapes to be squeezed into juice. Should we accuse Him of creating alcoholic beverage which entangles men in all sorts of depravity and is indicated in the majority of crimes, and in abusive family situations, and is the second largest cause of preventable death, and for over 40% of all traffic fatalities? Yet, in essence, this is exactly what you have done--accuse Jesus of promoting drunkenness and the resultant depravity and vice.
If, as you claim, "well drunk" in John 2:10 means that the crowd was already in an alcoholic stupor, then why do most translations not agree with your interpretation? Do you assert that you are better able to interpret the context and meaning using Strong's than the multitude of Bible translators which precede you? Just look at some of
Email this page to someone.
