Graculus

Judges, 9:13 - "Wine, which cheereth God and man."
Psalms, 104:15 - "Wine that maketh glad the heart of man."
Proverbs, 31:6-9 - "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."

See, even God thinks that it's OK to drink to relax.

inquisitive01

Judges 9:13 (Jotham's fable) does NOT say "even God thinks that it's OK to drink and relax" and is most likely referring to the juice from grapes (RE: the word "vine" in this Verse, which you omitted for whatever reasons), or grape juice.

Psalms 104 is a meditation on the power, providence, and eternity of God's glory, and is written BY A PERSON. Note that it also does NOT SAY "even God thinks that it's OK to drink and relax."

Proverbs 31:6-9 (actually, 31:4-7 in this regard) are king Lemuel's lessons of CHARITY and obedience, taught to him by his mother. In context, these Verses say the following:

4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:

5 Lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the judgement of any of the afflicted.

6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts (or, bitter of soul).

7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

Note that this is Lemuel's words based on what his mother told him and, once again, does NOT say "even God thinks that it's OK to drink and relax."

It seems you also conveniently forgot to mention Ephesians 5:17-18 (from The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ephesians), which says the following:

17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.

18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the spirit.


There's also Solomon's instructions from Proverbs 4:14-17, as shown below:

14 Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

15 Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away.

16 For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.

17 For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the wine of violence.

Graculus

No, it isn't. I have a hint for you. They didn't have refrigerators or freezers back then. If you try to keep grape juice it turns into either wine (or vinegar). Grapes can only be harvested once per year. The "vine" reference actually supports the statement - the vine's proper place is to provide wine.
..a glory which includes wine to make men glad.
"Don't make any important decisions while drunk" is hardly the same as a prohibition against drinking in general.
Paul was neither God nor Jesus, and cannot be trusted in this matter.
Hello, it's a metaphor, unless you are really asserting that bread is wicked as well.

Didn't the Pharisees get cranked because Jesus drank wine on occassion? When they accused Jesus of drinking wine, the apostles had no rebuttal.

Graeme

Is implying that the Son of Dog may have had 'habits' other than hiking and scrabble blasphemy?

chapka

It's incredible to me that there are still Christians who believe that drinking alcohol is sinful. The fact is, the Bible just doesn't make sense unless you realize that alcohol was a feature of the cultures that produced it.

The temperance movement spurred the publication of a number of books and pamphlets attempting to prove that, in fact, Biblical persons only drank grape juice. But it simply doesn't work; we know too much about the ancient world and their habits. In addition, the text gives it away. The story of the Wedding at Cana, for example, makes sense if the water is turned to wine, and not if it's turned to grape juice.

Yes, the Bible says that drunkenness is a vice. It also says that gluttony is a vice. But people in the Bible still eat--and they still drink alcohol.

chapka

No, they didn't, at least out of season. Keep grapes around year-round--at least until Pesach--and you have pretty much two choices: wine or vinegar.

The idea that where all Jews before or since used wine for passover, Jesus used grape juice, is just silly.

As for drunkenness, I was clear in my post that the Bible condemns it in most situations. But that doesn't mean everyone wasn't drinking wine (and, in the OT, beer) all the time.

That's what everyone else has been arguing in this thread, while you've consistently said that there's no difference between getting a buzz (on a drink or two with dinner) and any other level of intoxication. If you're now agreeing that moderate drinking--a drink or two a day--is okay, then I'm not sure why you're insisting that everyone quit for six months.

Graculus

No, they would only have had fresh grapes on hand during the harvest. Hint, the Passover is many months from the harvest season.
No one here said he did.

Drinking is not binary. People can drink alcohol and not become drunk. *I* don't care if *you* don't drink at all, but *you* seem to care that *I* drink. That is where there is a problem.

Graculus

You are having a problem with English again, I see.

"drink and relax" != "alcoholism"

And the Bible does say that drink was provided for the benfit of mankind, to be glad, and to ease misery.

Graculus

The referenced quotes are in an "approving tone". Wine is referenced approvingly both directly and metaphorically throughout the Bible.

chapka

First, I never disagreed that a "buzz" was a mild level of intoxication. What I disagreed with was your assertion that drinking until you got a "buzz" was toxic, in the sense of harmful. Of course a buzz is a mild intoxication. But, equally of course, a buzz is not drunkenness.

This is because intoxication is not a binary proposition. Yes, drinking a single drink with dinner will cause a certain amount of intoxication. Whether the individual can detect that intoxication as a "buzz" depends on many factors--hydration, food intake, body weight, sex, tolerance, recent sleep or exercise. But I think it's fair to say that many light drinkers, and probably most women who are light drinkers, will experience noticeable intoxication--a "buzz"--from a single standard drink with a light meal.

Teetotaler (short for "teetotal abstainer") is a word coined by temperance advocates to indicate someone who abstains from all alcohol, to distinguish themselves from the many temperance workers who were opposed only to hard liquor, but approved of beer and wine, or beer, or low-alcohol beer. Since then, it's been a fairly standard term for those who do not drink any alcohol. I don't see how it's in any way pejorative. (FWIW, "tee" is derived from the letter "T" for "Total" and not the beverage, so "teetotaler" is the proper spelling--think of "teetotal abstainer" as another way of saying "capital T total abstainer").

Some of the people? Try Jesus. Jesus drank wine as part of the seder, as Jews have for thousands of years. Have you ever been to a seder? It doesn't involve just one glass, either. Last one I went to, the haggadah included a couple of extra glasses, and I damn near saw Elijah.

Not only that, but Jesus created wine that he knew would be drunk by people who had already drunk all of the wine available to them--who were intoxicated enough that it was plausible to think they wouldn't notice if the host replaced the first-century equivalent of a Chateau Lafite Rothschild with the first-century equivalent of a Gallo.

Are we saying that Jesus "got drunk?" No. You're the only one saying that drinking enough to feel any effect of intoxication is the moral equivalent of falling-down drunkenness. What we're saying is that there's no problem, either according to our morality or the Bible's, with drinking enough to feel the effects--as seder guests generally do, and as the wedding guests at Cana certainly were before Jesus made his holy beer run.

Another question for you: if you think that biblical personages didn't drink alcohol at all, what exactly do you think they were drinking? How many non-alcoholic beverages do you think were available?