/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

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.

>nor drunkards

No. inb4 grape juice

>>754572

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?

>>754574

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.

>>754574

Losing self-control or sense of judgement. It will differ from person to person.

>>754574

When you lose control

>>754574

I'd say once you start feeling a 'buzz' than its a good time to start drinking water. For men, on average, it takes 3 cups of wine to get drunk (for women 2). So id say limit yourself to one less than what it would take to get you drunk.

Or just one serving if you are really concerned.

>>754591

A lot of that depends. I know a guy who's 6'0 and weighs about a buck 20 wet with boots on and he can drink more liquor than I would think humanly possible without showing any signs of drunkenness. Genetics, I suppose.

>>754567

The church and the west and civilization in general has a long track record of making and drinking alcoholic drinks.

beer and wine have historically been the equivalent to modern day sodas, except way better for your health. I home-brew beer and I drink until I'm "satisfied" in terms of thirst.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with liquor, but I think it can be dangerous since it only serves to put alcohol into your body.

>>754605

>I home-brew beer

I tried that once with a kit that a friend got me for a birthday years ago. I made the most horrifyingly vomitous concoction I have ever put in my mouth.

No, but its best to completely avoid alcohol since it can very likely lead you to the sin of drunkenness.

>>754619

>Doesnt understand the difference between traditional customs and Magesterium

>>754632

>Doesn't have a 5th grade reading comprehension

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

>>754619

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

>>754647

forgot to greentext

>>754614

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

>>754635

>doesn't have an argument

>>754649

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

>>754651

>Still didn't reread

>>754572

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.

>>754647

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.

>>754580

>Drinking is only the right of stocky 6' Teuton Nords

>Everyone else must make themselves landwhales otherwise

>aside from the fact that people have weighed less than this for most of history

>>754685

Alcohol tolerance scales to bodyweight

>>754569

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

>>754687

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.

>>754691

yes, but it's genetick too

>>754692

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.

>>754567

Jesus was called a drunkard by the Pharisees.

So I guess it's okay until the Pharisees would be right.

>>754691

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

>high metric, unreasonable

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

>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. [Proverbs 31:6-7]

>Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. [Matthew 15:11]

>For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. [1 Timothy 4:4-5]

>Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. [1 Timothy 5:23]

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

>>754778

Can I use krokodil in moderation?

>>754784

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

>>754776

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.

>>754787

We call those "anecdotes" and "anecdotal evidence"

In your experience, when is someone buzzed?

>>754788

>le fallacy fallacy

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.

>>754790

>nor stop it

*or

>>754619

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

>>754619

Okay yeah here's a absence of reason in this joke website:

>If people find out that doing something stops something bad form happening, like how using soap prevents infections, they will start using it

>This becomes tradition

>Because everyone uses soap, the disease rate will drop

>In a few generations nobody knows why people use soap though

>Some rationalist decides not to use soap

>Becomes diseased

>>754804

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

>>754805

When you offer the explanation, it is no longer a fallacious appeal to authority

I'm not really following your point

>>754806

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".

>>754808

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 >>754605 only says "the west has always done it" and asserts "there's nothing wrong"

>>754811

>Just having a internet argument

>Opponent goes full damage control mode for admittedly no reason

???

Anyways lets get through this.

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

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.

>but not sufficient for an argument alone

It is, I've explained the wide reaching implications of a appeal to tradition in >>754803 and >>754808

>The post >>754605 only says "the west has always done it"

Wrong, this is clearly a argument:

>beer and wine have historically been the equivalent to modern day sodas, except way better for your health.

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.