Alcohol

I wonder who I should listen to.

Attached: 1457964660802.jpg (649x621, 174.79K)

Stop being so dogmatic.

If drunkenness is sin, wouldn't you be a stumbling block if you provided more alcohol to a drunk man?
Could the sinless Jesus do that?

Jewish marriages had a custom of serving the best wine first, then serving the average and lousier wine later when the guests were a little too intoxicated to care. This leads to the following exchange:
But what if it was just really good grape juice? Answer this: would Jesus swindle a wedding by giving them grape juice instead of wine?

Alchahol is shit, it hurts my jaws like nothing else and makes me feel like I just spun around in a chair 50 times no matter how little I drink.
winnie the pooh it.

we're talking about human life not life in general you moron. of course sperm and every other cell in your body are alive. but none of them have the property that they will naturally form into a human person if left alone with no obstacles. how dense do you have to be to not understand the difference between a zygote and a hair cell??

So how does one decide when an organism becomes human? The moment it combines the DNA of parents? The moment it becomes more than just 2 cells merged together?

the moment that it has the property that "this thing will, by its own nature, if unimpeded by obstacles, eventually become a grown human person like you or me".

That means after birth, because it requires full life support until then.

No he wouldn't lie by giving a deceptive gift. What's your answer to my question?
It looks like I'm left to choose between Jesus being a sinner or your ancient anthropology source for wedding feasts being in error

Attached: bcd224e7e0f847ad46f3ea1a13f88eec01ae4332a34de0bd29f6327f1652d1a8.png (250x250, 86.02K)

A thing's "nature" isn't something esoteric and exclusive of common sense. Everything material requires some kind of support from outside of itself. Requiring support from outside itself is part of the nature of humans–and incidentally (since they re the same thing) also part of the nature of zygotes.

I was reading that you were adding the interpretation that it was certainly alcoholic, my mistake
Answer, would it be permissible to give alcohol to drunk men?

Jesus did, so I guess it depends on how much they've drunk.

If "well drunk" meant they were intoxicated, would it have been sin to give them more?

eat shit

A tree seed doesn't require any support, it takes what it can get. You can't extract a child that's not ready yet and expect it to survive. It doesn't even have a human shape until about halfway to birth.

A tree seed requires good soil and water and chemicals if it's going to grow. This is pretty basic. Tree seeds get bigger by absorbing other molecules into themselves, therefore they require other molecules in order to grow. If those molecules aren't there, the seed won't–will not–grow. I hope you won't try to deny this because if you do, you'll look (and in truth, be) really obtuse.

Just like a tree seed needs outside molecules of a specific kind in order to grow successfully, a zygote needs outside support of a specific kind, admittedly more specific than what a tree seed needs, in order to grow. But the degree of specificity doesn't change the basics of what's happening.

What else would it mean?
Jesus managed to live a perfectly sinless life, so unless your teetotaller meme is more important than mankind's salvation I should hope not.

So am I. If you reject all alcohol, you reject wine, thus you reject the Lord's supper, thus you reject Christ, thus you are damned.

Not bait, are you just pretending to be retarded?

You're a fool.

What? Why can't you just give a "yes" or "no" to any of the five times I asked you

No, i'm legitimately a retard and I need you to spell it out for me to definitively prove any wine Jesus drank was alcoholic

...

amazing argument, where do I sign up for atheism???

What does religion have to do with self-sufficiency of an organism?

you started out calling us "Christcuck", I assume this is because you have a superior intellect beyond all our poor benighted imaginings

I gave you an explanation that's blatantly obviously true, put it into nice little words, and instead of engaging me you greentext at me… What do you want me to say? You want me to tell you that putting something in a lab counts as giving it outside support–obviously? What else can I do? You're giving me no signs that you're arguing in good faith.

No, you’re the one who tries to be God by telling Him that He was wrong when He instituted communion. Baka.

Not really. I'm just pointing out that the moment where organism becomes self sufficient and able to survive outside of the womb should be considered the beginning of life. One doesn't expect a fallen fruit that didn't even form seeds yet to grow into a tree.

There's no such thing. If fully grown humans were self sufficient, zero humans would starve to death. Zero humans would drown. Et Cetera. The difference between needing food and air to live, and needing to be implanted in a uterus to live, is a difference in the degree of our limitation on our "self-sufficiency".

You cannot implant a skin cell into a uterus and have it grow into a fully grown human like yourself. You cannot implant anything except a zygote anywhere and have it grow into a fully grown human like yourself. Maybe you can use machines to tickle some cells into becoming other kinds of cells, and then form zygotes with those cells. But you can't get any human, ever, without that human going through the zygote phase.

Grown humans can provide food for themselves, human embryo couldn't swallow any even if it bit it in the ass, doesn't look particularly superior to spermatozoa in my opinion. They don't even have any brainwaves until two months in, it's not a person, therefore terminating it has no more importance than terminating spermatozoa. Also no one but tiggers starves to death unless they were somehow inconvenienced.

Life begins at conception. Moral relativism is disgusting and you should feel shame.

Attached: oxbz7rqejgs11.jpg (1242x1222, 120.52K)

So is it OK to kill an adult who has had an injury and needs assistance to eat, but is going to recover in a few months?

...

The contradiction lies within the claim itself. You are defining life as "not dying without outside help." So you have to admit that it is alive, since dying assumes the presence of life to begin with. So self-sufficiency isn't the beginning of life. It is another stage of life. How can anything "survive" if it is not yet living?

Stop trying to redefine life.

Attached: 1541367324309.png (500x333, 301.13K)

I think the context of it being a wedding is important. It would seem that, perhaps, Christ gives more leeway to consumption of alcohol in the case of important festivities. I don't think the same sort of license would apply to you or me sitting alone in our rooms or out at the pub on some random day of the week.

A puritan larping thread? lol. Oh yeah and do not dance too goyim, it is a sin you know.

If you're an alcoholic then you should not drink obviously. If you have trouble handling yourself around alcohol you should be careful, perhaps even abstainin altogether if you distrust your will. I can agree with that.
There's nothing wrong with having a bit fun with friends. I have never vomited, I always remembered everything. Just because you dislike alcohol or have trouble managing the intake that does not mean everyone has to drop to 0. If I dislik something it is moralist larpers.
By your logic:

Also, is it not the case that Jesus turned the water to wine at the request of the Blessed Mother? It would have been an embarrassment for the hosts to run out of wine for their guests, and a damper on the festivities. Two things here: Christ respects the requests of his Mother, and perhaps it was the greater mercy in comparison to any potential abuse of the libations themselves, which again, I'm not sure constitutes abuse in the context of merriment at a festive event.

Being intoxicated is a sin because of the change of behavior and leaving yourself vulnerable, not because there is a magic threshold at which drinking becomes a sin.
The Bible says that wine is good and makes the heart glad. Clearly that means that the issue is not with intoxication by itself. And Jesus's first sign in John was to turn the water into really good wine, at a party that already ran out of wine, meaning they were well cooked already.

Being drunk is a sin when you become too vulnerable and let the passions control you. Can't control your anger? Can't control your lust? Can't watch what you say anymore? Can't remember the beginning of your sentence? You drank too much.

Life begins at conception because God does His work making and forming the baby in the womb.

Aborting the baby is interrupting God's work. How arrogant do you have to be to think you know better than God?

Attached: Clever-Quotes-55954-statusmind.com.jpg (600x400, 62.34K)

Can autism be compared to drunkenness?

Pooh off to >/pisslam/

Bloody hell this is the biggest false comparison I've ever seen.

It's pretty well-defined to be honest.

Sounds more like an Anderson-tier protpill.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (649x621 443.19 KB, 443.19K)

Wine is per definition alcoholic.
True, but that's because you could not create non-alcoholic grape juice until pretty recent.
They didn't understand the fermentation process so they just mashed the grapes and collected the juice.
What they didn't know is that the symbiotic yeasts growing on the grapes (the dusty layer you see on the grapes you buy) turn the sugars into alcohol.
To avoid this you had to first cook the juice then keep it cool.
Since there weren't any refrigerators back in 0 AD it was therefore impossible to have unfermented grape juice, and that's why the regular juice was also called 'wine' because it was a temporary product leading to the wine that was so underused otherwise they didn't even have a separate word for it.

gee, I can't BEGIN to imagine what answer OP wants me to give
every single time

Yeah this

Attached: lotr-ring-contained-uranium.png (500x545, 126.12K)

No thanks, take this heresy elsewhere

ok
t. Pharisees
"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." - Matthew 11:19
Except many people have, for example Thomas Aquinas says that it is when someone's intellect is inhibited to the point where it would cause them to commit further sin.

RETARD LOGIC ALERT
A child just out of the womb, who most abortionists would define as a human, STILL can't feed himself, just like a child in the womb can't. The most popular method of infanticide through Roman society was to leave children out in the wild, because they couldn't provide for themselves.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22361296
Look where this logic leads you: VIRTUALLY EVERY ARGUMENT USED TO SAY THE FETUS IS NOT A PERSON CAN ALSO BE APPLIED TO A NEWBORN. This is why some extremely degenerate doctors have argued this point. Abortionists, of course, were shocked by this, because they still are not ready to embrace the natural conclusions of where their definitions lead them. But just as a fetus needs support from outside itself to live, a 1-week-old child does too.
Unborn children are people.

Attached: nanachi2.jpg (362x371, 64.18K)