First of all....misuse of the word "gay" lightens the concept of sodomy. Secondly,two or three gathered...is in reference to church discipline. We need to recognize that we are under Judgment and to acknowledge how we got to this point and address those issues first. I would think that things will wax worse for us otherwise. I listen to a preacher on the radio who is pretty solid in his teaching except he often uses illustrations of the dallas football team always placing them favorably.I'm guessing that most of his congregation are big fans. Anybody see the disconnect here? Sodomy is in our faces but we don't get it. How can we miss the obvious to the point of endorsing flagrant promiscuity?
Kev,you presume much with Scripture. Ex. You assume that Jesus was drinking wine just because he was seen with those who drank. Scripture only tells us that the people who were mocking Him were accusing Him of drinking and gluttony. Are you suggesting that He was gluttonous as well? Penn,He changed water into wine. Wine which Christ creates is better than mans. Why would it have to be fermented? People who have drank much are going to drink more alcohol at the hand of the One who condemns drunkenness to the point of exempting such from inheriting the Kingdom of God? And,our salvation does not hang on our performance but our walk matters. We are to be Holy says the Lord and why do we say that we love God yet disobey Him and flirt with the things which He detests?
Liberty in Christ is not license to sin but freedom to do that which is right. Can anyone actually justify modern day use of alcohol merely for pleasure? If they can,then they must also condone other intoxicants. Whether people want to minimize using it or not,at minimum,it is not expedient to use controlling substances for the sake of recreation.
Kev,1 Corinthians 6:9-11...no mention of gluttons not inheriting the Kingdom. Anne,poor verse to support alcohol use. Logically,based upon your interpretation,one could eat,drink,taste,touch anything...Must mean something else. Maybe,Connor,the people who got drunk then didn't dilute their wine much...and,obviously,if they're throwing up,they probably didn't have to drink too much more. Maybe you all know someone who drinks alcohol because they need to replenish their fluid intake. Of course,then that would have the opposite effect. Maybe you know someone who likes the taste...they could drink non-alcoholic wine. I don't know of anyone who does or has other than for the purpose of "relaxing" them. So,what's the difference between it and any other mind altering drug? We don't live in the conditions which the people did in the Bible. People are ignorant of the vice of alcohol use in society on a whole? Maybe they need educated.
Anne,you're assuming that the wine which Jesus made was alcoholic. This would only be necessary if being drunk was good. A drink of refreshment which God makes out of water would be good without the elements which would make for a buzz,especially since one was commanded to avoid drunkenness. How foolish to suggest that Christ gave those who had already consumed much wine,gallons more. This is contrary to his commandment U S,you have a more convenient interpretation of Proverbs...inaccurate,however. Mike,really? Not a good analogy. No one is getting drunk using toothpaste. 1 Corinthians 6:10...drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom... And yet some will try to defend drinking in moderation. The same who never considerably dilute their wine and have a problem with pot. A stumbling block to the lost and a highly selfish attitude of pride and rebellion...determining for themselves their "limit".
Anne,you are giving me your interpretation. ..not to look upon the wine when it is red is speaking of fermented drink ...even historians are well aware that wine was commonly mixed with WATER. Nonetheless,how foolish to concur that Jesus would have made 120 gallons of booze after the wedding party had already well drank. He would have been violating His word. A carnally minded person would envision the "wine" that Jesus made from water to be alcohol. No one can show me that the passage in Proverbs about the wine being red and moving itself aright,etc. is anything other than fermented drink. Winos know this. What Christ offers us is not alcohol through His blood but a new covenant. and..."yes" kjg,if you actually interpret that one gives thanksgiving for intoxicating beverages then,one could also do likewise for anything else which is comparable. ....or are you denying that the wine which this culture drinks is alcoholic? It is the person taking away the Word who suggests that alcohol is generally permissible. Wine is a mocker. Period. And strong drink is raging. Period. ..."wine" here is not in reference to His blood of the new covenant. It is in reference to booze. And the red being wine because of bloodshot eyes...is quite a spin,Anne.
Based on your verses,kjg,pot brownies could be received with thanksgiving. I was pointing out the contrast between the alcoholic wine and the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:18 and,the new wine in regards to his blood of the new covenant...which no one literally drinks unless you are confused and believe in transubstantiation. Again,there is no need to drink alcohol/fermented drink today. If one does,except for an exceptional medicinal purpose,they are breaking God's word which clearly states that the alcohol must be considerably diluted. I agree that common people drank alcohol because of their poor conditions. When they did,however,it was commonly diluted. If you are in an environment with poor water and have to drink wine then according to Scripture,it must be quite diluted. So diluted that you couldn't possibly get drunk. Do not even look upon fermented drink...the wine when it is red and moves according to the proverbs verse... And,of course,priests and kings and leaders were not to drink it at all. Christ is our High Priest. He wouldn't have sought after a buzz. The only Spirit to be filled with is the Holy One,not the spirits at the local venue.
Matthew 11:18 is a poor verse to try to prove that Christ drank alcohol. Those who were scoffing were incorrect in their accusation of Him being a glutton. They were equally in error saying that because He drunk that He was a drunk or,for that matter,considering the source...that He had drank alcohol. Being in the company of someone who drank alcohol didn't automatically magically make its way into the person in close proximity. U S,if the wine was not typically diluted then,it wouldn't have been necessary to include a verse stating to not look upon the wine when it is red...obviously,the passage is in reference to fermented drink which was undiluted. No one wants to concede this. And...do you not know that alcohol was not for kings and priests,nor leaders? How nice if our leaders wouldn't drink...now,they are infamous for being casino owners. Further...no one who does drink on here will admit that alcohol is an intoxicant. Funny though,even the world has enough sense to not sell it to minors.
Gay,which states... "i really despise alcohol and drinkers, that being said, wasn't an apostle informed to take wine daily for his stomach issues?:
Taking wine for the stomach was an EXCEPTION. Of course,then they didn't have the purest water and wine was always considerably diluted which is why it is expressly stated to not even to look upon it otherwise. No one who drinks the "wine" today,does that. Do they? The new wine is specifically the blood of the new covenant. It's curious how people today try to defend wine by mixing it with the idea of the new wine when Jesus drew a great distinction. The wine which gives us joy is definitely not the alcoholic one but the one which Christ provided. The carnal will defend the carnal unless it's not their preferred intoxicant. This is why those who drink alcohol think that they can still correct their children for doing drugs.
...and pray that Christians wouldn't be so gullible. News alert: this nation has been evil for awhile and if you don't have a problem with the mess that is part and parcel to the nfl,please refrain from trying to defend it. Clean up the mess or don't gripe about the other mess.
I didn't ask for passages which use the word "wine". Wisdom in context in how that word is used would discount your verses. Did the people then,substantially dilute the wine with water or not? If not-what does the verse stating to NOT even look upon the wine when it is red,etc. then referring to other than that it is not diluted and as it moves itself in such a manner that it is clearly fermented? ...and taking a little wine for the stomach was medicinally...obviously,if wine was good in its fermented state without dilution,then Paul would not have had to encourage Timothy to drink it. The "new wine" is in reference to the blood of the new covenant and is contrasted with the "wine" which makes one dull . Wine is a mocker does not mean it can be a mocker. For all of those who drink-I've yet to meet any who ever diluted it or really needed it for medicinal purposes. Of those who I know who defend it,they also are the most flesh-driven in their lifestyle choices. At minimum,no Christian in this culture can say that they are not a stumbling block to others,the lost as well,in defending alcohol.
...prayers for those who are in poor ones for strength and wisdom. Too many Christians succumb to the world's perspective in regards to marriage...too easy to just leave. The greatest blessings are found in God's will and ways.
You didn't answer my question,J Y. You only demonstrated that a RC "priest" will say anything whether they believe it or not. Dave,re: your dad- A Christian's real family member often times is not one closest to their dna but one who shares in the same blood as their Lord. Keep pressing,brother.
If that were true that they believe the guy is in heaven because he placed his faith solely in Christ alone then that would render the RCC and its false teachings,praying to saints, along with purgatory and the "making" of saints unnecessaary.
God bless,Dave... came across this one,,,a 12 step program for compulsive talkers- anon anon Sometimes it kinda seems that much of the content of J Y's post are circular... they go on and on Maybe the guy that passed away was a new born in Christ and happened to hear the truth and was naive or ignorant about the teachings contrary to the Word. I'm a little curious as to where the RCs envision the guy...considering the length of time and hoops that the "mother theresa" had to jump through to become a "saint".