What's the difference?

[Aquila]

Here's an excellent source for information regarding wine and the ancient world:

Wine in the Ancient World
R.A. Baker
Ph.D. Ecclesiastical History
http://churchhistory101.com/wine-alcohol-bible.php

I regret to inform you that it would appear that much of what you've said about wine on this thread is merely fundamentalist mythology.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point is, watered down or not... it was wine. It contained alcohol. And it wasn't "sin" in and of itself. The "sin" was in allowing one's self to become drunken. So, one can drink wine watered down, or one can just limit themselves to one or two glasses of wine with dinner. Either way, effort is being taken not to become drunken. To say that the wine was a sin, in and of itself, merely because it had alcohol in it, is to essentially say that Jesus and others consumed watered down sin. This would mean that Jesus wasn't sinless. And that my friend, unravels the entire atonement.

I think for this question, and others that involve standards, or appearance that is not specifically covered by the 10 commandments, or addressed by an apostle in a letter of un-ambiguous language. The sin is in the intent.

Intend to go to a bar to drink enough to forget- or to loosen your moral compass enough for a hook up, is sin the moment you leave the house with that intent.

Going for a nice shepards pie, cheesecake, and 2 fingers of really nice single malt scotch, is called having dinner. And because this place is a nice respectable pub.....just fine. No intent to do an evil, dangerous or disreputable thing is there.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

I think for this question, and others that involve standards, or appearance that is not specifically covered by the 10 commandments, or addressed by an apostle in a letter of un-ambiguous language. The sin is in the intent.

Intend to go to a bar to drink enough to forget- or to loosen your moral compass enough for a hook up, is sin the moment you leave the house with that intent.

Going for a nice shepards pie, cheesecake, and 2 fingers of really nice single malt scotch, is called having dinner. And because this place is a nice respectable pub.....just fine. No intent to do an evil, dangerous or disreputable thing is there.

Amen.

This fundamentalist lunacy has us condemning brethren over the mere consumption of a substance... and not the sin of the individual who abuses the substance.

[Wilsonwas]

8

Originally Posted by Aquila

Amen.

This fundamentalist lunacy has us condemning brethren over the mere consumption of a substance... and not the sin of the individual who abuses the substance.

The lunacy has its Genisis in things like the temperance movement, Wesleyan thoughts on holiness look, and the response to the counter culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of the objections are grounded in honest response to the same creep in relative social views of sinful behaviour that lead us to having more than two genders on a form. By categorically phohibiting, or expressing even, "we know its not bible, but"......To say one should seperate fron the world and define this in terms relative to a point in time is maybe OK. But to continue the prohibition or disfavor of a look or act not specifically biblical, long after the relative worldly issue has changed is to border on ridiculous.
To call it "the old landmark" - invent horrendous stretches of interpretation and reading between the lines to quote bible for it, this is where we wander into not only lunacy, but circles as well. If you constantly see an old landmark, you either never left the area, or are walking in circles.

[berkeley]

why do you want to remove the landmarks of the 1900’s?

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

8

The lunacy has its Genisis in things like the temperance movement, Wesleyan thoughts on holiness look, and the response to the counter culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of the objections are grounded in honest response to the same creep in relative social views of sinful behaviour that lead us to having more than two genders on a form. By categorically phohibiting, or expressing even, "we know its not bible, but"......To say one should seperate fron the world and define this in terms relative to a point in time is maybe OK. But to continue the prohibition or disfavor of a look or act not specifically biblical, long after the relative worldly issue has changed is to border on ridiculous.
To call it "the old landmark" - invent horrendous stretches of interpretation and reading between the lines to quote bible for it, this is where we wander into not only lunacy, but circles as well. If you constantly see an old landmark, you either never left the area, or are walking in circles.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My point is, watered down or not... it was wine. It contained alcohol. And it wasn't "sin" in and of itself. The "sin" was in allowing one's self to become drunken. So, one can drink wine watered down, or one can just limit themselves to one or two glasses of wine with dinner. Either way, effort is being taken not to become drunken. To say that the wine was a sin, in and of itself, merely because it had alcohol in it, is to essentially say that Jesus and others consumed watered down sin. This would mean that Jesus wasn't sinless. And that my friend, unravels the entire atonement.

Attention: During the Ancient Middle East everything was fermented from grapes, to goat milk.

During the Middle Ages in Europe animals were hung upside down and allowed to rot. This tenderized the meat through bacteria.

Kefir is middle eastern fermented milk, and the wines and vegetables were fermented. Jesus drank fermented grape wine. Yet, He would of never drank mixed wine, (as He was offered on the cross) or strong drink.

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by berkeley

why do you want to remove the landmarks of the 1900’s?

I dont want to remove them all, but ones invented in the 1800s and 1900s in response to specific movements, that are generally related to American historical moments, seem the ones least biblical, and most unevenly applied, as well as provide a source of dissension and infighting among what ought to be brethern.
These also are the sources of the horror stories we all hear where pastorial oversights become tryanny.
They may have had a purpose, at the time, but they have become institutional in how they are viewed. Questioning is greeted with shouts of "backslider", "rebellion", to quell discisdion. This seem pharasitical.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

8

The lunacy has its Genisis in things like the temperance movement, Wesleyan thoughts on holiness look, and the response to the counter culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s. Some of the objections are grounded in honest response to the same creep in relative social views of sinful behaviour that lead us to having more than two genders on a form. By categorically phohibiting, or expressing even, "we know its not bible, but"......To say one should seperate fron the world and define this in terms relative to a point in time is maybe OK. But to continue the prohibition or disfavor of a look or act not specifically biblical, long after the relative worldly issue has changed is to border on ridiculous.
To call it "the old landmark" - invent horrendous stretches of interpretation and reading between the lines to quote bible for it, this is where we wander into not only lunacy, but circles as well. If you constantly see an old landmark, you either never left the area, or are walking in circles.

Ouch.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Attention: During the Ancient Middle East everything was fermented from grapes, to goat milk.

During the Middle Ages in Europe animals were hung upside down and allowed to rot. This tenderized the meat through bacteria.

Kefir is middle eastern fermented milk, and the wines and vegetables were fermented. Jesus drank fermented grape wine. Yet, He would of never drank mixed wine, (as He was offered on the cross) or strong drink.

Wouldn't that indicate that fermented drink isn't a "sin" in and of itself?

I firmly believe that a life of drunkenness is a sin. Those who are guilty of this sin are described in Scripture:

Isaiah 5:11
Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!

The blessing of wine and alcoholic beverages is witnessed in Scripture as a part of celebration. Christ's first miracle was at a wedding. A celebration. There was joy, laughter, dancing, rejoicing. And when the host ran out of wine, Jesus turned 120-180 gallons of water into the finest wine... just to keep the party going. There is no sin in such a celebration. There is no sin in imbibing on celebratory occasions.

However, woe unto those who wake up early in the morning just to seek strong drink, and continuing drinking until evening, until wine inflame them. I know a man named John. He wakes up, has coffee, and then... he cracks open a beer. He'll drink all day long. He's clearly an alcoholic. He is abusive, isn't employed, and just a real lost soul. This is the sin the Bible is describing.

So, I don't see a "biblical" prohibition on drinking alcohol.

I do understand that back in the days of the Temperance Movement and Prohibition, the social climate was such that many churches preached against drinking alcohol, even in moderation. This was due to the widespread alcoholism in that society. I don't disagree with the pastors of that day teaching that Christians should abstain from alcohol. But what I do disagree with is the notion that the position is one drawn from Scripture, when it clearly isn't. I think pastors should be honest about these kinds of things. It's one thing for a pastor to explain to the congregation that due to some widespread circumstance, the church is going to choose to abstain for the sake of a clear Christian witness and to set an example for the society in question. Just be honest about it.

[n david]

I logged in this morning and thought about deleting AFF. May instead just start using the ignore feature.

It's one thing to debate an issue. It's something else to have post after post promoting drinking alcohol or using marijuana.

And then there's the incessant whining about beards and bashing of ministers, pastor and churches.

Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm in an apostolic forum or some secular forum.