Anvil,

Just further to the statistics question: It is not that statistics on nutrition are unreliable, but I think that most of the “cause of death” statistics are somewhat relative. You can objectively measure deaths caused by drinking and driving, or someone in a drunken rage killing someone else. Such as these would comprise some, but not all, of the deaths caused by alcohol. Some might die of heart disease or cirrhosis or some other ailment brought on by alcohol, but many of these deaths will occur much later in life when death will occur anyway. The same, I would suggest, is true of deaths attributed to over-eating.

Obviously, we all could eat much healthier than we do, but no one will escape Adam’s curse by it. But, yes, one of my points is that purchasing alcohol is a stumbling block and I can’t believe those who refuse to acknowledge it.

~~~

Now to all… I am still on the road today, so no more posts till this evening at the earliest. I have approved one of the three in the queue and deleted the other two.

I am afraid we are just getting into the mode of saying the same things over and over again and not getting anywhere. Is there any point to that?

I am also getting angry and flailing away with the oxgoad, rather than making rationale arguments. I do apologize for that. Let’s see if I can be more productive later.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

If you were asking specifically to the question of being a stumblingblock simply by purchasing alcohol, then I apologize for misreading. If you are planning to close this thread, I’ll just leave this alone.

I do agree that food is necessary, where alcohol isn’t. My point was that the rich, tasty foods we all enjoy aren’t strictly necessary either — “pulse” would be sufficient, yet with all the health issues we see from fatty, sugary foods, I see no call to avoid those for spiritual reasons, even though nutrition issues may in fact cause many more deaths than alcohol. (And yes, I agree that statistics are not always all that useful. However, if the statistics about nutrition are not reliable, that probably also applies to the stats about alcohol deaths as well, when the numbers come from the same source.) I do think people become at least psychologically addicted to food, though I would agree with you that unless you are eating something with narcotic properties, it won’t generally cause you to lose your senses. The dangers of misuse of food are different, but they are still there.

If this doesn’t get published because you close the thread, that’s certainly fine. This is more for you than for your other readers anyway.

There are several in the queue. I am debating whether to delete them or post them. This issue is one that stirs the passions and posts descend to a level of snarkiness that probably is unbecoming for all, me included.

I may decide simply to delete all remaining comments and close the thread. I think that there comes a point when discussion is pretty well useless and both sides have made their points.

Keith, I did delete one post of yours from earlier today. I may delete the one remaining in the queue.

My reasons are entirely subjective.

And since it is [ahem] my blog… I retain the right to be entirely subjective as I see fit.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Anvil,

I am sure that not all of my arguments hold water! I am not immune from my biases.

As for this example, I think the statistics regarding cause of death are pretty misleading when it comes to, for example, poor diet and exercise. I would venture to guess that many of these deaths are related to advancing age as well, whereas deaths directly related to alcohol are often much more sudden and tragically young.

I don’t think that we get anywhere making arguments from statistics. My dad says figures don’t lie but liars can figure. Rather, however, I think it is undeniable that the use of alcohol causes much harm in human lives. It isn’t necessary to sustain life and because of its dangers (and other reasons) should not be used. On the other hand, food must be taken in order to sustain life. You can’t live long without it. Granted, you shouldn’t abuse it either, but it isn’t a matter of it being addicting or causing you to lose your senses. I think again, this is another category altogether and is often merely a smoke screen by the proto-drunkards to justify their misbehaviour.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I think one must be careful with a statement like your last sentence/paragraph. It is certainly true that misuse of alcohol can kill. I’ve read several different sets of statistics on this. I’ve seen numbers of deaths from ~20,000/year to ~85,000/year from alcohol (the latter number also contained car crash deaths where alcohol was involved). That seems like a lot, and of course could certainly be avoided by abstinence (assuming those people would not have died another way that year). However, deaths from poor diet and lack of exercise per year are more in the ~350,000 range, or more than 4x as many.

To use your logic, I don’t see how churches can continue to have “pot-luck suppers” when they include so many dangerous substances. Maybe we all ought to abstain from really good tasting food and stick with “pulse,” as it was called in Daniel, since sugar, fat, etc. can be so dangerous. In addition, maybe not exercising regularly should be considered as sinful abuse of the body, just as smoking is.

I understand there are good reasons to abstain, but considering any alcohol use to lead *inevitably* (your word) to loss of testimony is simply speculation — something you can’t know with authority, and not, it seems, in line with scripture.

Understand that I am not arguing for alcohol use here, but I don’t believe that all of your arguments hold water.

I fail to see how your comments on Rom 8 negate either my first of third point.

I should have clarified my second point. None of my friends have ever become drunk in my presence. The point was that plenty of moderate drinkers have no problem controlling their use of the substance.

I’m not so consumed with lust for alcohol that I have to make a concerted effort not to become drunk. Rather, with the understanding that people might accuse me of drunkeness (like they did Jesus), I am careful to guard my testimony. I consider my eating habits in the same manner; I don’t want my non-believing friends to think I’m a glutton.

To your point about alcohol’s danger (which I’m not discounting), I would argue that the leading cause of death in the U.S. is heart disease, which is usually caused by poor eating habits and obesity. I think it is easier to ruin your testimony with a fat gut than it is by drinking moderatly.

Your implication that moderate drinkers aren’t true Christians is simply ridiculous!

Paul, we do not know whether all conditions in the world today are exactly the same as Garden of Eden conditions. We do know that the creation groans waiting for the redemption. The implication of Romans 8 is that the physical world is broken and will one day be fixed.

As such then, I find your points 1 and 3 irrelevant.

On point 2, I did not say that one drink will inevitably lead to drunkenness. I was speaking of a category. There is no change in category between buying the stuff to drinking the stuff to drunkenness. It is all one and the same category. Keith was trying to make the spurious argument that putting one’s arm around one’s own wife is the same category as fornication and would tempt the fornicator to his sin. I say baloney. In fact, I say balognim (that’s the plural of balogna and his statement is worth at least two of them).

You say none of the people you know have ever crossed the line of drinking to excess. That one would be another balognim. 1) You are not with these people 100% of the time and can’t possibly make that statement with authority. 2) You can’t tell me that no one you include in this description has ever had “too much”. How would you define “too much”? Could it possibly be called drunkenness?

Finally, I am amazed at the insanity of people who are so bound by their lust for alcohol that they would use a substance they have to “make a conscious effort” to control their use. Amazing. I make a conscious effort too. I don’t touch the vile stuff and I urge everyone to adopt the same clear God-honouring testimony.

It is amazing that so-called Christian people have this one thing they must have liberty for when it is such a dangerous substance and causes so much death and destruction every day.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don, the intention of anything I write here is not change your mind (b/c that clearly is never going to happen), but to simply give a different perspective.

(1) While God didn’t create wine at the beginning of the world, he also didn’t create bread. He did create fermentation and your body uses it regularly (if you physically exert yourself). Normally your muscles use cellular respiration, but after about a minute of heavy exertion, you’ll run out of ATP. At that point, the muscles start lactic acid fermentation. Once our muscles form lactic acid, they can’t do anything else with it, so until it is gradually washed away by the blood stream and carried to the liver (which is able to get rid of it), our over-exerted muscles feel stiff and sore even if they haven’t been physically injured.

Bread is made using a similar process and the wonderful smell we enjoy is a result CO2 and ethanol evaporating.

I think it’s safe to say God intended for us to use the things he created to make both bread and wine (His own son created wine at the wedding feast).

(2) You assertion that one drink inevitably leads one to drunkeness is too broad and baseless of a statement. I have a significantly large group of friends who drink regularly (mostly in our own homes) and all make a consciencous effort to protect our testimonies as well as keeping people from stumbling. None of the people I know have ever crossed the line of drinking to excess. Rather, we give thanks to God for His wonderful creation and the blessings he allows us to enjoy.

(3) Not only did Jesus create and consume alcoholic wine, but we will all enjoy it at the feast prophesied in Isaiah 25:6. “And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.”

Lees refers to deposits of dead yeast or residual yeast and other particles that precipitate, or are carried by the action of “fining”, to the bottom of a vat of wine after fermentation and aging. The yeast deposits in beer brewing are known as trub. However, yeast deposits from secondary fermentation of beer are referred to as lees.

Normally the wine is transferred to another container (racking), leaving this sediment behind. Some wines, (notably Muscadet), are sometimes aged for a time on the lees (a process known as sur lie), leading to a distinctive yeasty aroma and taste. The lees may be stirred (batonnage in French) in order to promote uptake of the lees flavor.

The lees are an important component in the making of Ripasso where the left-over lees from Amarone are used to impart more flavor and color to partially-aged Valpolicella.

That’s all from me. I agree with all of Keith’s excellent comments.

I think that is just pure baloney, Keith. Especially the way you described it:

(holding hands, hello kiss, arm around shoulder, etc.)

I think that married couples could possibly be too demonstrative in their public embraces, but you certainly weren’t describing that. You described very minor and normal public expressions of affection.

It is impossible for you to equate that with a stumbling block for an alcoholic if he saw his pastor going in to the liquor store to buy wine or what have you. That is just pure baloney and that is a category error if ever I saw one.

I’d invite someone else to chime in and offer their comments on this particular question, but it appears it is only you and me that are interested in this!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Drunkenness follows in a straight line from one drink to too many drinks — no doubt about it. Just like fornication follows in a straight line from desire for physical affection to engaging in it outside of marriage.

You either did not read my post #18 carefully or else you did not read it fairly. I never said that a little bit of affection for your wife is ok but too much is fornication. I said that public displays of affection with your wife could be a stumbling block to a single person desiring such affection.

You had said that you didn’t want someone who struggled with drunkenness to see you buy wine. I was asking if you minded a single person who struggled with fornication seeing you share physical affection with your wife. You don’t want the drunk to see you with wine, do you want the fornicator to see you with a woman?

If you think that upon seeing two people publicly display affection — even if they are married — a single person cannot be reminded of pleasures denied him (physical affection and others) and be tempted by this reminder, you are not being realistic.

The categories are fine. I am beginning to think that you don’t even want to understand what I am writing.

Good night.