Bluebird,
We disagree on the definition of “plain reading.”
I think it means what the text says without excessive or strained interpretation, more like taking the text literally.
But since there are two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation, taking the two stories as literal history creates an impossible situation for literal interpretation. Man could not have been created three days after the earth had brought forth vegetation (as in the first creation story) and before any plants had sprung up (as in the second creation story).
And alcohol is a great problem for those who have become addicted to it or are susceptible to it. For others, it is not a problem. As James wrote, anyone who knows the right thing to do, and doesn’t do it, to him that is sin.
Some can drink, as Jesus did, and others should not.
Hi Cobra…I actually was being a bit tongue in cheek with my remarks on plain reading. What I meant was that we generally think “we” have it right —and I could not agree with you more in your remarks. Same for alcohol… Have a good day
Eric, hey bud. I just want to let you know that you are not alone. There are people just like you out there. They are recovering from addiction, love Jesus, and think science is great. Don’t give up on your search to find them and form friendships with them. As for people who are not like you, for your own sake give grace. Try to remember that we’re all trying our best but we all have deep fears and hurts that we all, even Christians, are dealing with. It’s disappointing when the people we’re leaning on have massive faults. It’s ok to be honest when you disagree. You might just win a friend out of it after all. Don’t do recovery alone brother.
03Cobra, I want to contend with you about two statements you have made, not because I want to be contentious, but because, at least with regard to one statement, I think you are promoting a dangerous idea. You conclude:
“Some can drink, as Jesus did, and others should not.”
The truth is everybody can develop an addiction to alcohol. There are a number of different paths that arrive at the same place. Let’s focus on one of them. Most people drink alcohol when socialising. The reason is it reduces anxiety and “greases the wheels of social interaction”. A glass or two takes the edge off that anxiety. The power of alcohol in anxiety-reduction is that it gets to work very quickly. The negative thing about alcohol is that it stops working very quickly also. Fast onset, fast offset. That is why you can legally drive after a few drinks about an hour later. When the amount of anxiety is fairly small, the amount of alcohol is very small and the offset of alcohol effects is barely noticed as conversations and relationships develop and are found rewarding. However, when the amount of anxiety is larger, greater amounts of alcohol are consumed. Imagine the onset and offset of the effects of alcohol as a bell curve. As anxiety becomes greater, the slope of the bell curve becomes very steep. On the downward slope, the return of anxiety occurs very fast; sometimes fast enough to incur panic.
Standing back from the process, the problem is seen as anxiety, not alcohol. Anti-depressants can also be used for anxiety reduction. Depression, the common cold of mental health, often includes a component of anxiety and anxiety may even be the dominant factor. A trip to a GP can lead to a prescription for anti-depressants. However, not all GPs are equal when it comes to mental health. The modern form of anti-depressants known as Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors or SSRIs are preferred because of their lack of side-effects. However, surveys have shown that SSRIs do not help in around 30% of cases, so an older form of anti-depressants are needed. Ideally, a course of anti-depressants should be administered by a psychiatrist to a patient who is under 24/7 observation by nursing staff until the correct type and dosage of anti-depressant is selected. Of course, such a course of treatment can be expensive and thus beyond the reach of many people. That should be of concern to Christians. When Jesus conducted his ministry of healing, he didn’t ask people if they had health insurance. This leads us to a remaining problem. While alcohol may not be the primary cause of the problem, it is easily within reach and its use to “self-medicate” may be a habit that needs to be broken.
So in short, there is no class of people who “can drink alcohol”. Anyone can develop a problem with alcohol, so I think the wise words of Paul also echo here: “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! (1 Corinthians 10:12 NIV)
Well, we do disagree, and I see a world in which there are millions of people who can drink alcohol without the impact you describe.
Are you arguing that no one should drink alcohol?
Why stop with alcohol if seeking to avoid all risk? Anyone can become dangerously overweight, but I don’t think all people should avoid chocolate.
The psalmist tells us that God gave us wine to gladden the heart.
Psalm 104:14-16 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
14 You cause the grass to grow for the cattle,
and plants for people to use,[a]
to bring forth food from the earth,
15 and wine to gladden the human heart,
oil to make the face shine,
and bread to strengthen the human heart.
16 The trees of the Lord are watered abundantly,
the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.
That is not true for the many cultures where wine and beer in moderation are part of family mealtimes. I highly doubt most French or Italian homes are drinking wine with dinner because they are anxious and need to take the edge off before they interact with their family. Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are problems that can affect any culture and any individual, but different societies use alcohol differently. When I visited Czech Republic, France, and Switzerland, wine and beer were a part of dining, but I saw far less abuse of alcohol and people were much more careful about always having designated drivers. In America, the partying and self-medicating culture around alcohol consumption and the lack of moderation is often pretty unhealthy.
Towards the end of my day I decided to wind down and have a glass of red before I looked at my e-conversations; and I read your comments above. No, I am not saying that no one should drink alcohol. I am arguing the case that a division of people into “alcoholic” and “non-alcoholic” as the basis of whether a person should drink or not is a false and dangerous dichotomy.
Anyone can drink alcohol for years before any signs of alcohol misuse appear. Perhaps they have had two glasses of red with the evening meal, … even on doctor’s orders! Then they go through a period of real stress and when you phone them in the evening, their speech is a little slurred. It could get worse, but a personal visit by a friend with a gentle comment will be enough for them to watch themselves. Arguing this side is fairly easy. The other side is bound to run into opposition.
Someone develops a problem with alcohol. We label them an “alcoholic”. We send them off to a program to stop them consuming alcohol. They remain dry for some time, but then they start drinking again. Why do they start drinking again? We are content to say to ourselves, it is because they are an “alcoholic”. In other words, the label has given us an explanation. In effect, we’ve been treating the symptom instead of the cause. They drank to suppress the pain of something that is so deep, and so personal, that they cannot even talk about it. They need help with that. Just labelling them an “alcoholic” lets us off the hook.
Addendum: USPSTF says do not advise patients to drink alcohol, in part because of risk. Original study on doctors with alcohol use was also mistaken and skewed because teetotallers included ex alcohol abusers, thus potentially raising their risk.
Thanks.