Is it wrong for Christians to drink alcohol?

Is it wrong for Christians to drink alcohol?

Attached: 00223.jpg (600x429, 57.86K)

No.

Christ's first miracle was to turn water into wine.
Drinking is not a sin, drunkenness is.

Jesus drank wine and even created more wine for his mom.
Just dont become an alcoholic.

It's not wrong for a Christian to enjoy alcohol, but it is wrong to over indulge and get drunk:

So if you are offered a cup of wine at a dinner or a celebration, don't be a square and enjoy a drink that God hath given us.
Just know your limits and don't succumb to drunkenness.

Attached: B-PLAQ-4-2.jpg (397x500, 85.63K)

No. inb4 grape juice

What confuses me is, how exactly is drunkenness defined from a Christian standpoint? Obviously getting blackout drunk is bad, but what would the limit be?

jebus was the booze.

Attached: rich mans drink.jpg (650x488, 47.84K)

Any change as a result of consumption
This is way below the Western cultural idea of "drunk". You should never be "buzzed"
One beer is too much if you're under 200 pounds.

The best idea is to never drink at all. Any impact by alcohol is a reduction of your "filling" with the spirit

T. Baptist

Attached: Screenshot_20190110-185032_BLB.jpg (1080x193, 66.16K)

I was always told that "drunkenness" is that moment when you stumble. Either in speech or action. Like when you slur your speech or you trip over your own feet because of alcohol. That's when it's time to stop. I was told that a little social tipsiness isn't a big deal. But, I was raised by Methodists, so take that how you will. Some denoms are complete teetotalers.

Pace yourself, you'll have some idea when you've had enough.

Jesus Christ and the entire catholic church and every single christian up until prots decided to become """"enlightened"""" on alcohol was wrong

forgot to greentext

I started straight into all grain it and its seemed fine enough, I've never had "real" (store bought) beer before home-brewing though..

...

I just didn't really follow the instructions right. I'm not saying don't do it … I'm just really bad at it.

...

About that strong drink. I became aware not long ago of it being translated as "beer" in other languages and mead in the Septuagint, which would make more sense than distilled spirits which don't appear to have existed in their current popular form of consumption until around the high middle ages, unlike beer and wine which do have more substantial attestation in the ancient near eastern archaeological records.

But I know apologetics for stronger liquors will still be made regardless for the simple fact of it being of the same "ousia" as other beverages and its crafting by monks in some cases.

Hey now, Central and Western European Reformers and their countries are famous for consuming beer in those big mugs. No need to label all Protestants as teetotalists.

...

Alcohol tolerance scales to bodyweight

Well put, user. On a side note, do you think it is wrong to pray for Jesus to turn the tap water in my home into wine?

Not necessarily, it can also depend on other factors like how much or what kind of food is in your stomach which is said to be how eastern Europeans are able to consume copious amounts of vodka.

But such a high metric strictly for weight looks unreasonable.

yes, but it's genetick too

Could be like with the causes of alcoholism but the science isn't clear.
Some people might be allergic to certain products and not others.

I was always under the impression that drunkenness was taken to be 'chronic' or 'habitual drunkenness, i.e. don't succumb to the vice of alcoholism. Getting drunk isn't necessarily bad, but being intoxicated doesn't excuse you from any sins you commit due to your intoxication. Moreover, if getting drunk makes you more likely to sin, then you should not get drunk.

However, I see a lot of Christians (for example - just about everyone else responding to your post) disagree with this. Having noticed this, I therefore make no claims to having the correct view in this argument. Also, I fall into someone who is prone to chronic drunkenness so it's a moot point for me regardless - for me, drinking becomes a passion, and thus a sin, and I now abstain from it by the grace of God.

Attached: drunkenness of noah.jpg (674x576, 156.79K)

Jesus was called a drunkard by the Pharisees.
So I guess it's okay until the Pharisees would be right.

Yes necessarily, tolerance scales to bodyweight. Other factors like what you've listed can also contribute, not denying it.

Even unsaved social drinkers use a rule like this. Do you not think that "buzzed" is sin?

It's God's creation, user. Be thankful for it, and use moderation, but do not think that it's against God to enjoy it within reason.

Can I use krokodil in moderation?

No, you can't. I know you know that already.

No not necessarily because there are plenty of instances including from personal experience in which people with a lower body mass are observed tolerating their alcoholic intake better than someone with a higher body mass.
Therefore it would be inconclusive to pin it to weight. But there's probably little point getting into the possible science of it seeing that one day's study may find itself disputing the last or the next study.

All in all suggesting that anyone under 200 pounds is buzzed or inebriated after having a single beer is incorrect as it would deny most men and women in the world and throughout history even the smallest amount of an intake.

We call those "anecdotes" and "anecdotal evidence"

In your experience, when is someone buzzed?

There's also the fact that alcohol isn't like some externally penetrating object such as a knife or bullet in which body fat can hinder it nor stop it. Rather it's ingested and absorbed through the bloodstream.
Unlike differences in body mass, differences in organ sizes and functioning isn't relative to body mass. Taller people don't have larger brains.
Given the average range of difference between human height the time it takes to travel through the circulatory system should be largely identical if it were an important factor but it probably is not.

*or

The most absurd "fallacy" ever invented. What's next: Appeal to Christ as a "fallacy?"

Okay yeah here's a absence of reason in this joke website:
>Some rationalist decides not to use soap

Attached: Screenshot_20190111-090142_Clover dev.jpg (918x150, 27.33K)

I literally explained why there is "no explanation" to why we do things in that greentext. Go back and read it.

When you offer the explanation, it is no longer a fallacious appeal to authority
I'm not really following your point

The point is that this is basically a non fallacy. You can literally use my argument for ANY instance of people using the fallacy.
In itself "its tradition" is already a argument, and the argument is "If you suddenly stop something you always did, you'll encounter the reason people started doing it in first place".

Ironically you're falling victim to the "fallacy fallacy", by thinking that the identification of a fallacy defeats the position.

Historical examples are fine supporting evidence but not sufficient for an argument alone. That's the point.
The post only says "the west has always done it" and asserts "there's nothing wrong"

???

Anyways lets get through this.
What people mean by "Fallacy Fallacy", is that only the fallacy is refuted when you point it out, and not any other thing the opponent as said.
But even that is wrong since I'm arguing that "Appeal to Tradition" isn't even a fallacy.

It is, I've explained the wide reaching implications of a appeal to tradition in and

Wrong, this is clearly a argument:

Just watched bits of a documentary with renown moonshiner Popcorn Sutton and in it he says his granddad built the first Baptist church in Hemphill with proceeds from moonshine sales. Even if you argue over the effects it has on people, the influence it has on the development of cultures and societies has been notable.