Social drinking?

[houston]

Originally Posted by Sean

As long as I dont drink, I dont have to worry about fitting what the Lord's standards are concerning being drunk. It could be a level of,.001, and thats drunk to Him. But like I said...I have nothing to worry about here brethren! I hope you feel the same also.

I really can't deal with your selective stupidity.

The standard of being drunk is to be drunk.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Prax really...Drinks dont lead to drunkenness?...cmon bro...ya hurt me in a bad kinda way...LOL

Drinking in excess leads to drunkeness

I will say it again, The people of that day cut their wine with water.

Your argument is a logical fallacy called a slippery slope. The fact is I have proven that wine is fermented and that it was not a sin to drink it but to get drunk.

Because of that and the hard evidence of what the bible says you have to come up with some sort of argument to keep believing what you do.

but think about this..let's decide we can define obesity as a sin. Gluttony.. So don't eat food

Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost and we are not to defile it. Lots of food are bad for the body and if you eat even good food that will lead to eating bad food too or eating too much.

That's your logic. Greed is a sin. Money leads to greed. Don't have any money.
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.


This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
EXAMPLE: "If Kirk was to come back in a new Star Trek movie, then it will look like Berman is desperate. Jay Leno would make jokes about it, too. This will destroy the franchise's credibility. This would destroy Star Trek."
PROOF: Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

There is a big difference between adding to the Word and defining the sin it is suggesting. I am just trying to help my wonderful brethren here not get caught with a buzz when the Lord comes.....Matt 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;

50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Actually there is little difference.

Adding to it or changing it is all the same. You are defining the word, not allowing the word to define itself.

Using that sort of reasoning has gotten a lot of people into deep false doctrine because they can define it however they please

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Paul is basically saying drinking wine itself is excessive..."Ephesians 5:18



And be not drunk with wine, wherein("in which", wine the subject) is excess(or wine itself is excessive or overindulging); but be filled with the Spirit;



Paul is giving us the ALTERNATIVE to wine here,,,BUT(or rather), to be FILLED with the Spirit...Otherwise known as "THE NEW WINE"


When we get the New wine, we dont need to drink the old wine anymore...

Paul is giving the alternative to DRUNKENNESS and you even quoted Paul saying that is "excess".

In other words if you got drunk, you drank TOO Much. He should have said "don't drink any at all", if you are right.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Prax, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the wine you are referring to is fermented. I clearly see the common drink of Jesus and the believers of the N.T. as drinking unfermented grape juice, just like believers drink it today....It was healthy then and it is healthy now

Ive already proven my burden. Your usual reply was to twist my words into saying Jesus got drunk or to have some flippant comment about me getting drunk.

The burden is on YOU to prove the assertion that wine can refer to non-fermented grape juice in the bible.

I gave you several Hebrew/Greek scholars on the words and what they mean and how they are used

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Someone on this thread said the Bible does not teach against moderate drinking, if you are honest, please read this link. It is only 2 quick pages. Then tell me if you think it is okay for a believer to drink.....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...74035653,d.cGE

Sean, this is your post. This was supposed to be your argument. In this he asserts Wine is both fermented and unfermented.

But this guy does not offer one shred of evidence. So the burden is yours

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Paul is giving the alternative to DRUNKENNESS and you even quoted Paul saying that is "excess".

In other words if you got drunk, you drank TOO Much. He should have said "don't drink any at all", if you are right.

Paul was just explaining to them that drinking was "excessive" and being Filled with the Spirit is the N.T. alternative. These saints deserved an explanation of why to give up booze and drink the "New Wine".

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Prax, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the wine you are referring to is fermented. I clearly see the common drink of Jesus and the believers of the N.T. as drinking unfermented grape juice, just like believers drink it today....It was healthy then and it is healthy now

You say you see that, but you can't prove it. In fact you have not even tried.

Once again they did not have refrigeration NOR pasteurization at this time. Food went bad.

Where do you think they got the grape juice from? Corner market?

BTW did you read those verses I posted? It's the word of God.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Sean, this is your post. This was supposed to be your argument. In this he asserts Wine is both fermented and unfermented.

But this guy does not offer one shred of evidence. So the burden is yours

Prax, that was just a random post, can you imaging if I even spent 10 min. looking for related commentaries....I heard bro. Seagraves teach on this subject years ago. I would LOVE to be able to post his stuff here. He was masterful in his presentation of what is wine and drinking alcohol in the N.T.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

Paul was just explaining to them that drinking was "excessive" and being Filled with the Spirit is the N.T. alternative. These saints deserved an explanation of why to give up booze and drink the "New Wine".

No he did not say "Drinking is excess".

He said "Don't be DRUNK with wine, which is excess"

Wow! All through this conversation you have not only changed what I have said but what the bible says.

That should be a bigger sin than sipping some wine or champagne.

How can drinking wine be excessive? The word Excessive means TOO MUCH.

So he is saying not to drink TOO MUCH.

Right? If you EAT TOO MUCH you can get sick and if you do it often, overweight

Does that mean not to eat at all?