Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

It's a drug. That alters your mind. Who decides what drugs are evil? The politicians? Is getting addicted to heroine a sin? If it is, why is that different from alcohol in God's eyes? Is there some line in the sand in God's Law that differentiates between good recreational drugs and bad ones? Or are all recreational drugs not sinful because God never said they were? In fact, is any act not sinful (okay to do) if it is not on the Ten Commandments, or mentioned as a sinful act in the Bible?You claimed the gospels described our Lord as a drunk, when they merely relate that some people who are presented as hypocrites claimed he was a drunk on a very thin pretext. Wine was simply a common drink back then. Water could and did make people sick.

To say one is a drunk is vastly different from saying some hypocrites falsely criticized someone for being a drunk. I don't think you need a postgraduate degree in Hebrew to differentiate between the two statements.

Incidentally, St. Jerome was quite skilled with Greek and Hebrew, as well as having access to texts which later vanished and a knowledge of beliefs about Christ in the ancient world.

And on the subject of the Ten Commandments, which is the correct one? The Jewish one (Moses was a Jew and they had possession of them first) or the Christian one? I understand that they are not the same.They won't be the same between two different versions of the bible either, but the gist is largely the same.

The happiest people I have ever met have been "filled with the love of Jesus Christ". They were like charisma magnets, their happiness was so evident. I understand that faith can move mountains. I have also experienced at times in my life the positive effects of prayer. I am envious of your peace and happiness as well, Felt.

It's just the beliefs I have to convince myself of, to have faith, that is the stumbling block for me.
Thank you and I understand your sentiment. I was there once myself.

The happiest people I have ever met have been "filled with the love of Jesus Christ". They were like charisma magnets, their happiness was so evident. I understand that faith can move mountains.
People who are always happy annoy me.

People who are always happy annoy me.Because you're probably smarter than them (and I mean terminally happy people, not necessarily Christians). Ignorance can be bliss. The truth isn't always pretty.

Happy people don't bother me. Unless they're trying to convince me of some BS which indicates their brainwashed, deluded state. Terminally miserable, whiny, negative people annoy me. And fools annoy me. Especially fools who don't realise they're fools.

Is alcohol intrinsically evil? And what does Hebrew have to do with it?

I think they mean both Divine and Human, silly.:rolleyes:

Of course alcohol isn't intrinsically evil.

In the Mediterranean and Near East countries, wine was/is consumed on a daily basis and the consumption of which is not considered anything exceptional.

You claimed the gospels described our Lord as a drunk, when they merely relate that some people who are presented as hypocrites claimed he was a drunk on a very thin pretext. Wine was simply a common drink back then. Water could and did make people sick.

To say one is a drunk is vastly different from saying some hypocrites falsely criticized someone for being a drunk. I don't think you need a postgraduate degree in Hebrew to differentiate between the two statements.

Incidentally, St. Jerome was quite skilled with Greek and Hebrew, as well as having access to texts which later vanished and a knowledge of beliefs about Christ in the ancient world.

Your point about the usage of wine rather than water is very good.

Wine was/is used throughout the Mediterranean/Near East for several reasons.
The purification of water in certain parts of that region is even a problem today, whereas wine making has it's own inherent purification process and can be a lot safer to drink than water.
Roll that back 2000 years - and the case for win consumption becomes more compelling.
Bottom line it is safer in many instances to consume wine.

Also the symbolism of wine plays an important part.
Wine in that region is mostly red in colour.
Red wine is used in the Mass to trans-substantiate in to the blood of Christ.

And fools annoy me. Especially fools who don't realise they're fools. Oh don't be too quick to say that...
You haven' yet met Fools who do not realise they're fools and think they're Solomon reincarnated

When you meet these types.. those oblivious fools are less .. irritating.

Your point about the usage of wine rather than water is very good.

Wine was/is used throughout the Mediterranean/Near East for several reasons.
The purification of water in certain parts of that region is even a problem today, whereas wine making has it's own inherent purification process and can be a lot safer to drink than water.
Roll that back 2000 years - and the case for win consumption becomes more compelling.
Bottom line it is safer in many instances to consume wine.

Also the symbolism of wine plays an important part.
Wine in that region is mostly red in colour.
Red wine is used in the Mass to trans-substantiate in to the blood of Christ.I had similiar thought and I believe that though the translation is a little lost into english some of the "wine" was not much more than grape juice. There is one scripture that references "strong drink" implying that there were different degrees of fermented wine and perhaps not all being fermented, but yet translated "wine."

.....and to those who believe Christians are fools, I can accept being called a fool. I suppose it is fair payback for when I was calling Christians fools back in the day. :D

People who are always happy annoy me.The happiest people I ever met were drunk.

Actually...the only people I ever meet are drunk.And I like it that way.

Flip on Faux News sometime and watch Bush and his crusade against Islam.So you're against a militant, fundamentalist, fascist mentality, provided it's Christian?:confused:

Evangelicals aren't flying airplanes into buildings FYI.

I envy somewhat the happiness that is obviously felt by those with faith in God. I don't envy the willingness to avoid tough questions. But I can't sacrifice my judgment of truth and sense for what feels good. The questions I put forth in my above post are all based on what occurs in today's world and what is told in the Bible. They aren't twisted.
I encourage you to google "Epictetus" if you think happiness comes from denying reality. This isn't about religion, although the healing power of Christ can surely help one grasp Epictetus' famous idea.

So you're against a militant, fundamentalist, fascist mentality, provided it's Christian?:confused:

Evangelicals aren't flying airplanes into buildings FYI.
They are just invading other countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people. That is so much better.

They are just invading other countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people. That is so much better.Who would have thought you were referring to the Iraq war, instead of the noise some are making about ilsamo-fascism.

You know, Iraq was one of the most secular societies from the Muslim world. It is speculated that one of the reasons George H.W. Bush (Bush 1) left Saddam in power in 1991 was to counterbalance the power of Iran in the region.

Whatever you have to say about the current war, to say it's about fundamentalists persecuting muslims is a little ridiculous.

You know, we had Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Maahdi army trapped in a mosque at one point. If it's a holy war why didn't the Marines just obliterate it with artillery?

Who would have thought you were referring to the Iraq war, instead of the noise some are making about ilsamo-fascism.
The head of the christo-fascism himself, George "Dubya" Bush, described his wars as a crusade. That loon and his end of the world nutters think they are fighting an axis of evil. They have even given the evil doers a cute name, so they can pretend they are fighting a modern day equivalent of Hitler. It's easier than looking in the mirror and seeing they are the nazis of the modern world.

The odd thing is that Iraqis would be better off if we had left Saddam in power. We would be far better off too. bk

The odd thing is that Iraqis would be better off if we had left Saddam in power. We would be far better off too. bk
But then the islamo-fascists would win. :rolleyes: It's much better to bankrupt the country fighting an eternal war against an imaginary villian.

George Orwell was a prophet.

Of course, any Christian worth his salt would condemn the actions of George
"Born-again" Bush, in respect of Iraq.
Bush is a hyporcrite.

The leaders of the Methodist Church in the USA, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have all condemned the Iraq and Bush's part in that war.

Of course alcohol isn't intrinsically evil.

In the Mediterranean and Near East countries, wine was/is consumed on a daily basis and the consumption of which is not considered anything exceptional.
The europeans were serious boozers:

"In his Autobiography Benjamin Franklin recorded his observations while working for a London printer in the 1720s: "We had an alehouse boy who attended always in the house to supply the workmen. My companion at the press drank every day a pint before breakfast; a pint at breakfast with his bread and cheese; a pint between breakfast and dinner; a pint at dinner; a pint in the afternoon about 6 o'clock, and another when he had done his day's work." Such amounts did not make the drinker incapacitated for work; indeed the drinker felt that he must, in the words of Franklin, "drink strong beer that he might be strong to labour." In medieval England the normal monastic allowance was one gallon of good ale per day, often supplemented by a second gallon of weak ale. The daily ration for the Black Monks of Battle Abbey in Sussex was one gallon of wine a day, more if the monk was sick. In addition to this heavy day by day drinking, special events were occasions for gargantuan consumption. Guests at the banquet to honour the installation of George Neuvile as Archbishop of York in 1466 consumed 300 barrels of ale and 100 barrels of wine. English peasants were regular consumers of ale. For example, the maintenance agreement for Margaret atte Green of Girton in 1291 included in her pension enough barley to provide her with 2.6 pints of ale a day. The evidence also indicates that peasants were able to consume more ale after the demographic slump of the mid-fourteenth century, so that in the late fourteenth century both the abbot of Newbo and the nuns of Nuneaton were giving their workers one gallon of ale a day.

The heavy drinking of medieval England continued into the early modern period. The account books for the Percy family of Northumberland reveal that in 1512 the lord and lady shared a quart of beer and a quart of wine each day for breakfast. Their two children in the nursery, aged about 8 and 10, shared a quart of beer at breakfast. At the court of Henry VIII three ladies in waiting shared a gallon of ale between them each day likewise at breakfast. Calculations based on the amount of barley used for brewing in Conventry during the 1520s indicate that the average consumption of ale was 17 pints of strong ale a week for every man, woman, and child in the town. Statistics for English consumption of beer late in the seventeenth century indicate an annual consumption per person of 832 pints. To put this figure in context, in 1976 the amount was only 209 pints, one fourth the earlier figure.

If England seems awash with beer and ale, France and Italy were awash with wine. During the fifteenth century members of the household of the archbishop of Arles received a daily per capita ration of over 2 liters of wine. Vine growers in the same area likewise drank 2 liters of wine a day. Vine growers formed an obvious special case; cowherds and chambermaids only drank one liter a day. On the other hand, the peasants of Languedoc, male and female, consumed a litre and a half or even two liters of wine a day, good year or bad. At Carpentras in France in the fifteenth century the annual per capita consumption ranged from 210 to 390 liters, depending on the quantity of the vintage. The annual per capita consumption of wine in Paris in 1637 was at least 155 liters and probably much more. Workers spent about 15% of their income on wine, an amount that would permit them to drink about half a liter per day.

Turning from France to Italy, calculations based on the statistics in Giovanni Villani's chronicle of fourteenth-century Florence indicate an annual per capita consumption of wine between 248 and 293 liters, averaging about 2/3rds of a liter per day. At the same time the amount of wine entering Siena was enough to provide each person with 1.15 liters per day. Given the large number of those too young or too poor to consume much, the daily per capita consumption of the rest of the population would approach 1.5 liters, that is, two bottles. A study comparing the consumption of rich and poor in sixteenth-century Italy reaches similar conclusions; among the wealthy the average daily consumption of wine was 1.7 liters, among the poor it was half a liter. The figures for seventeenth-century Rome are higher than they are for Paris; the annual per capita consumption, despite some fluctuations, remained above 200 liters, 210 in 1636 and 270 in 1660. To put these figures on the consumption of wine in Italy and France in context, in 1976 the annual per capita consumption of wine in France was 104 liters; in 1972 in Italy it was 111."


http://www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/centrefooddrink/publications/articles/martinhowmuchdrink0paper.html

The europeans were serious boozers:



The "boozers" must have been persecuted at some point, like the Knights Templars, and they all fled to Australia... :D