Alcohol

[Teutonic]

I'm not trying to demonize alchohol, but I cannot see how it could be good for you considering the effect it has on the brain and body.

And what are we to make of all these studies? Tomorrow we'll have another such study which completely contradicts the findings of today's.

[wmfinck]

Just in little Ireland --

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/health-and-alcohol/

Eighty-eight deaths every month directly from alcohol.
Chronic alcoholism among young people.
Alcohol a factor in up to one-third of death from unnatural causes.
Etc.

Be careful what kind of witness you are giving, brethren.

Gaius, nobody here is promoting alcohol abuse. God forbid!

But as EzraLB wisely pointed out, the same argument could be used by those who would take all of our guns. We can extend that logic to knives, bows & arrows, baseball bats, hammers, etc.

Where does the madness end, and where does the man begin to take responsibility for himself when he abuses any tool, or any substance, rather than put the blame elsewhere?

Christianity is also personal responsibility, and the apostles preached moderation in all things.

[Nayto]

But as EzraLB wisely pointed out, the same argument could be used by those who would take all of our guns. We can extend that logic to knives, bows & arrows, baseball bats, hammers, etc.

I don't think we should reduce the comparison to such simple factors. We should honestly consider the overall good each has on society. On average do guns in the home do more good than harm? Yes. On average does alcohol in the home do more good than harm? Probably not.

[EzraLB]

On average does alcohol in the home do more good than harm? Probably not.

Nayto, the statistics on alcohol abuse simply do not support this claim that you are making. According to the following study, only 30% of all drinkers have abused alcohol at least one time in their lives. And that doesn't mean that 30% of drinkers abuse alcohol all the time. What that should suggest to you is that 70% of people who drink have not abused alcohol at any time in their lives.

This article goes on to state that only about 4% of drinkers abused alcohol in the previous year. In other words, 96% did not abuse it. What this shows is a vast majority of people who drink--70%--have not abused alcohol in their lives. So it's hard to make the case that among most people alcohol does more harm than good.

Clearly, among those who abuse alcohol the effects can be devastating, but to indict the vast majority of responsible drinkers because of this small minority who can't control themselves is rather short-sighted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/30-of-ameri ... tudy-says/

[wmfinck]

But as EzraLB wisely pointed out, the same argument could be used by those who would take all of our guns. We can extend that logic to knives, bows & arrows, baseball bats, hammers, etc.

I don't think we should reduce the comparison to such simple factors. We should honestly consider the overall good each has on society. On average do guns in the home do more good than harm? Yes. On average does alcohol in the home do more good than harm? Probably not.

It is not about whether any particular item has done harm or good. It is about whether or not men themselves take the blame for their actions, or whether they will continue to lay the blame where it doers not belong.

Why did Yahweh accept strong drink offerings, and why was alcohol not barred in the Law? We see restrictions on alcohol consumption placed on priests in the performance of their duties. That implies that drink was acceptable when they were not performing their duties.

The vow of the Nazarite prohibited alcohol, so we see that dedication to God commands abstinence. There is a proper season for everything, and the law is our schoolmaster.

[Teutonic]

I suppose we could further differentiate between bodily harm and societal harm. If it can be shown that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial, then any harm done to the body is the individual's fault due to their incontinence.

Similarly, on a societal level, if an individuals poor drinking habits begin to take a toll on their family, friends, etc; then that individual is also to be blamed, and not alcohol in and of itself, bc we can abuse just about anything; as Bill pointed out.

[Gaius]

Gaius, nobody here is promoting alcohol abuse. God forbid!

But as EzraLB wisely pointed out, the same argument could be used by those who would take all of our guns. We can extend that logic to knives, bows & arrows, baseball bats, hammers, etc.

Where does the madness end, and where does the man begin to take responsibility for himself when he abuses any tool, or any substance, rather than put the blame elsewhere?

Christianity is also personal responsibility, and the apostles preached moderation in all things.

I appreciate the points you/others are making, Bill.

But --

There was a lady posting on this forum several months back who indicated that alcohol had made her life difficult, to say the least.There are statistics galore (hard numbers, not "studies" by pro or anti-drink factions) that give the full account of the ravages in terms of premature death, crime etc etc associated with booze among our people. I repeat ...our people ...

To be seen as persistently promoting the spurious "benefits" of a poisonous and addictive substance that causes such obvious harm is imho at best naive. I want to say, Bill and with the greatest respect, that such efforts will be misconstrued by many. Not least by, say, the families of the 88 who die every month just in Ireland; nor by the likes of the lady who used to post here whose present lives are a misery because of alcohol, either directly or indirectly. Such persistent promotion, for that is how it will be seen, will amount to casting a stumbling block for our weaker brethren.
Lastly, comparing alcohol with weapons of self-defence is not imho legitimate.

[Kentucky]

It's interesting that gun-grabbers use the same argument--without guns, there are no gun deaths. Prohibitionists argued that by making alcohol illegal and impossible to get, that it would cure many of our social ills. Eliminate all food, and we will have no gluttony. Remove the sin by removing the temptation. Remove the jews and live happily ever after.

Well, you bring up a good point albeit convoluted, because removal of evil, not to be confused with good, is a biblical principle. However, the problem arises when a society calls evil good and good evil. There is a time when swords are turned into plowshares and vice-versa. Right now, none of us, if we are stout White Christian men, can be in agreement with Obama's scheme to ban guns, but we should be in agreement that now is the time to be sober and vigilant. Sobriety, of which there is no law against, which can never be banned, is the opposite antipode. In my humble opinion, guns and alcohol are not the same thing nor analogous.

The argument is not really drunkenness, it is who is going to decide where you draw the line between moderation and drunkenness. And, of course, that is left up to the individual, not God. We should never remove the temptations of sin, as the thinking goes, and if it's wrong God will take care of it. Yes, divine judgment will take care of it. The good Lord sure showed them at Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t He? Why? Because when good men decide to do nothing then evil prospers. Why did God put us here in the first place? To drink in moderation or to be sober? Which of the two are more apt to do something about evil?

The Fall of Adam and Eve was due to the fact that they could not remove from their own mind any and all thoughts of indulging in that forbidden fruit (it really doesn't matter whether it was sex or an apple or whatever); they crossed the line and spoiled their glorified bodies. The curse has been with us ever since. I don't want to pop your bubble, but the principle of removing or banning or destroying the idols of the heart, which is the ultimate source of sin, is not without precedence in the Bible. The only good kings in Israel, in the eyes of God, were those who brought down the Baals; wiped them out. When entering the Promised Land, the command (and principle of my argument) was to eradicate all of the Canaanites... all. If we are to be self-respecting exterminationists, believing our own beliefs, then yes, when we remove all the jews, we will live happily ever after just as the parable of the wheat and tares promises (Mt. 13:43).

Honestly, what was the higher good of Prohibition? Was it not saving lives? Or were these Christians just party poopers? If you like statistics, I think during that era, you will see a decrease in alcohol-related deaths, not to mention the misery and tragedies that accompanied a wet society, which the nation reverted to after repeal. In fact, the same principle applies to drugs in America. Alcohol is simply a diluted drug in liquid form. The woman in Rev. 17:6, Mystery Babylon, was intoxicated with the fratricide of her own kind, not necessarily alcohol, but having the same kind of altered state of mind that Rev. 18:23 calls sorceries i.e pharmakeia... drugs, poisons, toxins etc. And as we know in Christian Identity, a false doctrine like universalism can be the deadly drug of any religion.

One last thing, as I said earlier, I'm not bashing any of my friends in this forum who indulge in recreational drinking and know how much is too much. I am simply stating truths as I understand them for myself and for the edification of one and all; one is free to take it or leave it. But, please don't take it personally. It's just a subject that needs discussion. If there is no alcohol (booze), then there is no lives destroyed from it. I say that as an axiom, not as the reality, but hopefully something that is not needed in the future. If there are no sodomites, there is no sodomy. If there are no jews, there is no judaism. Do we live our lives as if we are already living in the Kingdom? Speaking only for myself, and becoming ever more conscious of a healthy life, I am willing to sacrifice known toxins as a thing of the past that cannot coexist in my temple of God. What others may do or rationalize is their business.

Mark

[Kentucky]

Why did Yahweh accept strong drink offerings,

From my understanding of Numbers 28:7, it was the best of the best liquors (perhaps figs or some other fruit) and not wine of the grape; and according to Exodus 30:9 drink offerings were not to be poured upon an altar of incense (no doubt it would douse the ember), but the drink offering could be poured on the lamb, the altar of burnt sacrifice. “A fourth of hin” in my margin note says that was about 6 quarts, which must have been a sizable quantity of the good stuff. Perhaps God thought it better that they pour it on the lamb than pouring it down their throats.

and why was alcohol not barred in the Law?

Probably because it would have conflicted with medicinal purposes for the elderly sick and as an anesthetic for those about to die (Prov. 31:6-7). Although I've seen some with hangovers who look like their dying lol. Was “barred” a pun?

Mark

[Nayto]

Nayto, the statistics on alcohol abuse simply do not support this claim that you are making.

The study defines alcohol abuse and alcoholism as follows:

Alcohol abuse was defined as drinking-related failure to fulfill major obligations at work, school or home; social or legal problems; and drinking in hazardous situations. Alcoholism was characterized by compulsive drinking; preoccupation with drinking; and tolerance to alcohol or withdrawal symptoms.

Alcohol can have a negative affect even with something milder than those definitions. This article was kind of alarming to me honestly. It doesn't take a life long habit of alcohol abuse to ruin a life and the abusers affect the lives of others as well.

What about a drunken driver who slams into someone who is sober? This happens all the time.

It is not about whether any particular item has done harm or good. It is about whether or not men themselves take the blame for their actions, or whether they will continue to lay the blame where it doers not belong.

Why did Yahweh accept strong drink offerings, and why was alcohol not barred in the Law? We see restrictions on alcohol consumption placed on priests in the performance of their duties. That implies that drink was acceptable when they were not performing their duties.

The vow of the Nazarite prohibited alcohol, so we see that dedication to God commands abstinence. There is a proper season for everything, and the law is our schoolmaster.

All things being held constant, sure. The reality is that much has changed since the Law was given. Alcohol is much more readily available to people now. I won't pretend to know exactly the situation then, but I don't think anyone could have gotten up, walked to the store and blown their paycheck on alcohol.