|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Nov 21, 2010 12:00:28 GMT -5
There has been a discussion on the main board about wine vs. grape juice in meetings, and someone also asked about that on here. I see this as being connected to views toward alcohol in general in different societies, and enjoy discussing it from this point.
As I mentioned in another thread, though grape juice is generally used in meetings in California and Hawai`i, I did know of one elder who used wine. I have always had a very high regard for this man, as do many of the friends and workers, as well as his extended family and acquaintances. I do wonder if someone who didn't have quite the high regard this man has would have been able to use wine in the meeting.
I've always found the varied "restrictions" on alcohol - some more or less unspoken, at least in public - rather interesting, to say the least. Wine, though disapproved by some (I have had older companions and friends tell me bluntly that they have no use for even wine, will not eat out with someone who orders wine for dinner), is often still tolerated. I have been in a home several times for large dinners (this is after I left the work), in which wine was served. I was nervous, knowing the particular workers there did not approve, but I drank some anyway, because I like it and I appreciate others who are willing to do something that is not necessarily approved.
It's interesting to me too that beer is less tolerated than wine. Beer has a lower alcohol content, so arguments as to its effect don't necessarily hold. But beer does have a different "social position," often being associated with a lower economic class, and with a general "rowdiness," while wine can be associated with "fine dining" at expensive establishments.
The same people who served wine at home took us out a couple of times - once for Mexican food and once for pizza - and ordered beer both times. I had it too, as I have always like the smell of beer, and I really enjoyed it - and it's healthier than many soft drinks! But I did feel "troubled" about it, now realizing that was more my socialization than anything.
It's interesting that these people are able to "get away" with the wine and beer. Their marital situation is also "disapproved of," but they are financially able to help out in numerous ways, and seem to be "approved" in general. I'm not criticizing the family at all in this - I like them; they've been friends of mine too. I'm just pointing out that these "differences" in treatment do exist, and I believe we're all guilty of it, whether in meetings or in society in general.
And yes, I do drink alcohol now - an occasional Mai Tai when we go out to listen to Hawaiian music, and - a little more frequently - an occasional beer, particularly with something like burgers, tacos, pizza . . . all the healthy, low-cal, low-cholesterol things we love!
|
|
|
Post by trevybear on Jan 6, 2011 19:28:07 GMT -5
Jesus drank wine. They called Jesus a wine bibber or an alchoholic in short. Jesus turned water into wine. A very respected Elder in Athens took me for supper and we drank a beer. In Greece at convention just before the convention started they served wine for the workers and most of the friends and most of the friends and workers drank a glass or 2. I recommend that people shouldn't meddle with it because it can be dangerous and be abused. But there is nothing wrong with wine in or out of meeting. If Jesus can drink wine then so can we. Just be careful with it. Everything in moderation. I don't recommend you going to the liquor store now, but if you are offered a glass of wine don't feel like it is wrong spiritually. God does not like drunkenness but a glass or 2 of wine or couple of beer will not send you to hell.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 6, 2011 20:41:14 GMT -5
Food can also be abused.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 6, 2011 22:48:00 GMT -5
This is true and there are harmful long-term effects to be considered when consistently over indulging. However the effects are not as immediate, far reaching or vicious as the problems that arise from drunkedness. Reminds me a little of the 'harm minimisation' push to combat drug taking that was around in the 90's. Many a training course I attended where coffee and aspirin were equated as drugs along with marijuana and heroin - the idea never seemed to jell for me, so I guess I was judged as a bit of a redneck. Sort of like the apples and oranges thing.
|
|
|
Post by alia on Jan 7, 2011 7:38:15 GMT -5
I asked a worker about this and she said that the wine in Jesus' time was really just like grape juice
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2011 10:27:01 GMT -5
I asked a worker about this and she said that the wine in Jesus' time was really just like grape juice And this worker was correct. It was fermented grape juice. I believe some might call it alcoholic wine ?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jan 7, 2011 13:59:54 GMT -5
In one of my early years in the work, I went on a tour of a Napa Valley winery with a group of workers. It was a bit embarrassing as Doyle Copeland questioned them about how they made alcohol-free wine . . . the tour guide looked a bit, ummm . . . puzzled? Doyle was insistent, through the years, that Jesus made wine with no alcohol in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2011 15:13:23 GMT -5
In one of my early years in the work, I went on a tour of a Napa Valley winery with a group of workers. It was a bit embarrassing as Doyle Copeland questioned them about how they made alcohol-free wine . . . the tour guide looked a bit, ummm . . . puzzled? Doyle was insistent, through the years, that Jesus made wine with no alcohol in it. Noah apparently imbibed in the fermented version of grape juice, so obviously the world had not yet learned the secret of "alcohol-free" wine. He nevertheless ends up in the "faithful" category during Paul's review.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 7, 2011 15:52:09 GMT -5
In one of my early years in the work, I went on a tour of a Napa Valley winery with a group of workers. It was a bit embarrassing as Doyle Copeland questioned them about how they made alcohol-free wine . . . the tour guide looked a bit, ummm . . . puzzled? Doyle was insistent, through the years, that Jesus made wine with no alcohol in it. Noah apparently imbibed in the fermented version of grape juice, so obviously the world had not yet learned the secret of "alcohol-free" wine. He nevertheless ends up in the "faithful" category during Paul's review. And then there were Lot and his daughters!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2011 20:17:03 GMT -5
Noah apparently imbibed in the fermented version of grape juice, so obviously the world had not yet learned the secret of "alcohol-free" wine. He nevertheless ends up in the "faithful" category during Paul's review. And then there were Lot and his daughters! I've always wondered what Lot thought when he realized his daughters were pregnant and he was the only guy in town.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 8, 2011 0:03:47 GMT -5
And then there were Lot and his daughters! I've always wondered what Lot thought when he realized his daughters were pregnant and he was the only guy in town. You think that may have been unusual? In their living environment?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2011 10:40:27 GMT -5
I've always wondered what Lot thought when he realized his daughters were pregnant and he was the only guy in town. You think that may have been unusual? In their living environment? Emy, I would like to think that no matter the environment, a God-fearing man would be horrified to learn he had sex with his own daughters.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jan 8, 2011 13:21:44 GMT -5
You think that may have been unusual? In their living environment? Emy, I would like to think that no matter the environment, a God-fearing man would be horrified to learn he had sex with his own daughters. That's true.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 8, 2011 15:12:24 GMT -5
You think that may have been unusual? In their living environment? Emy, I would like to think that no matter the environment, a God-fearing man would be horrified to learn he had sex with his own daughters. I'm not so sure the law of God prohibits incest.
|
|
|
Post by JaneF on Jan 8, 2011 15:56:07 GMT -5
Emy, I would like to think that no matter the environment, a God-fearing man would be horrified to learn he had sex with his own daughters. I'm not so sure the law of God prohibits incest. Yes, the law of God prohibits incest in Leviticus 18, the chapter in which homosexuality, bestiality and adultery are also condemned. 6None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. We are told that such things are an abomination to the Lord. 30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
Clarification: When I say homosexuality, I refer to homosexual sexual interactions.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 8, 2011 16:37:27 GMT -5
I'm not so sure the law of God prohibits incest. Yes, the law of God prohibits incest in Leviticus 18, the chapter in which homosexuality, bestiality and adultery are also condemned. That scripture must not be accurate. We all know that God approved of incest among the children of Adam and Eve. Without that original incest, none of us would be here, right? And we know that God does not change. Therefore, Leviticus 18 must be a law of man; not a law of God.
|
|
|
Post by JaneF on Jan 8, 2011 17:05:09 GMT -5
Do we? How? I can't find any scripture to say this. Not saying it isn't there, though, but I haven't come across it!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 8, 2011 19:58:46 GMT -5
Do we? How? I can't find any scripture to say this. Not saying it isn't there, though, but I haven't come across it! Are you saying that Adam is not the father of all mankind?
|
|
|
Post by JaneF on Jan 8, 2011 20:21:06 GMT -5
Do we? How? I can't find any scripture to say this. Not saying it isn't there, though, but I haven't come across it! Are you saying that Adam is not the father of all mankind? Are we told in the Bible that he is? As far as I can see, we're not...we're told that Eve is the mother of all living, though. But what I asked was, why do you say that God approved of incest among Adam and Eve's children?Let's say it did definitely happen. Does that mean that God approved of incest? Cain killed Abel. Does that mean that God approved of murder? I don't think so. Just because God allowed something to happen, doesn't mean he approved of it. Paul wrote in Romans 7 that God's law was put in place so that we would know sin. 7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.I believe that this was the case before God instituted his law - those who sinned did not know that they were sinning before God.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 8, 2011 20:27:11 GMT -5
Who were the parents of Eve's grandchildren? Eve's children must have had sex with each other or with their parents, right? And since God set things up that way, how could it possibly have been against the will of God for them to have done so?
|
|
|
Post by JaneF on Jan 8, 2011 20:58:34 GMT -5
Who were the parents of Eve's grandchildren? Eve's children must have had sex with each other or with their parents, right? And since God set things up that way, how could it possibly have been against the will of God for them to have done so? Having turned to the Strongs Hebrew dictionary, I see that the word "mother" does not necessarily mean "mother" as we know it today. Em (517) means "mother; grandmother; stepmother"...also "mother-in-law" - The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible So, to rephrase Genesis 3:17, using this definition: 20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother/grandmother/stepmother/mother-in-law of all living.
This clears it up for me. God must have made other people as well as those we are told about in the early chapters of Genesis. These people would therefore not be biologically related to Eve, but by marrying her children would have become her daughters-in-law or sons-in-law. So there's our answer: There was no reason for those people to have incestuous relationships. Perhaps they did, I don't know. But there were others there whom they were not related to. The important thing: they had a choice in whether or not they would commit incest. God supplied two options - an incestuous relationship or a non-incestuous relationship. I think I'm safe in saying that God never approved of incest. And thanks, Gene, for questioning me on that - I'd thought briefly about that verse before, but never looked into it. It's good to get an answer on it
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 8, 2011 21:33:40 GMT -5
Well, now, if God created humans other than those the bible records, that opens up another whole can of worms. "As in Adam all die, so in Christ are all made alive" (or something to that effect - that's from memory). Now if there's a creation other than Adam, is that creation subject to a whole 'nother set of rules?
Were there others in the Garden of Eden besides Adam and Eve? Did they refrain from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Are they still there? If there's another creation of man on earth by God, not recorded in the bible, can we extrapolate that there COULD be another creation of god on some other world? Perhaps those creatures that Cain et. al. procreated with were not created by God? Could they have been created by some other being? Maybe they were created by the devil? And that's why you have part of God in you and part of the devil in you? It gets so confusing, if God created another strain of humanity other than Adam and Eve. I'd rather chalk it up to incest and call it a day.
But maybe not. Maybe there was another creation. What would that mean if one carried that thought through the rest of the bible? Does it hold water?
Dubious Disciple? Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by trevybear on Jan 8, 2011 21:44:51 GMT -5
I was a witness to many workers drinking wine in Greece just before convention started. I saw nothing wrong with it. p.s. back to the topic
|
|
|
Post by trevybear on Jan 8, 2011 21:57:13 GMT -5
Question to those that don't believe Jesus drank Alcoholic wine? Why did they call him a wine bibber (alcoholic) if he didn't drink alcoholic wine?
|
|
|
Post by JaneF on Jan 8, 2011 22:16:31 GMT -5
Please note that this was only a suggestion...but it interested me that the word 'mother' means so much more than that one word. "As in Adam all die, so in Christ are all made alive" (or something to that effect - that's from memory). Now if there's a creation other than Adam, is that creation subject to a whole 'nother set of rules? Out comes Strong's again! "Adam means "man; mankind; people; someone." So "Adam" doesn't necessarily refer to Adam the man, but to mankind as a whole. A creation other than "Adam the Man"? Maybe. A creation other than "Adam the human race"? I don't believe so. Were there others in the Garden of Eden besides Adam and Eve? Did they refrain from eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Are they still there? First, let me explain my position. I believe 2 Timothy 3:16, which says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". Therefore I believe that everything the Bible tells us is true. I don't know if there were others in the Garden of Eden, but if there were, I don't believe they are still there. Why? Paul told us that "all have sinned and come short." Also Romans 6:12 says "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" I believe the sin of Adam and Eve would have been enough to get any others who may have been there kicked out too! If there's another creation of man on earth by God, not recorded in the bible, can we extrapolate that there COULD be another creation of god on some other world? Who knows? In the beginning, there was only heaven and the earth. We know there are other planets, though, so I guess He must have made them at some stage after that. Another world, another creation? It's a possibility! Perhaps those creatures that Cain et. al. procreated with were not created by God? Could they have been created by some other being? Maybe they were created by the devil? And that's why you have part of God in you and part of the devil in you? Nope. John 1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. It gets so confusing, if God created another strain of humanity other than Adam and Eve. I'd rather chalk it up to incest and call it a day.
But if it's chalked up to incest it leaves the question that you asked...why would God give the people no other option but to do that which is abomination to Him? But maybe not. Maybe there was another creation. What would that mean if one carried that thought through the rest of the bible? Does it hold water?
I don't think it would make much difference...but I'm open to correction of course It's not introducing a new concept - the Bible tells us already that God has the ability to create human beings. It would just mean that Genesis was like all the other books in the Bible - not every single human being was mentioned by name. Dubious Disciple? Your thoughts?
Interested to hear! Ever seen the film 12 Angry Men? "I'm just saying it's possible, that's all!"
|
|
|
Post by trevybear on Jan 8, 2011 22:35:08 GMT -5
True here in Canada if I was invited to a get together with the young folks and they were full of joy and all holding beer cans I would be a bit uncomfortable. In Greece just before convention the young folks were passing around a bottle of wine and I felt comfortable with them. I wonder if it is a little like when in Rome do as the Romans. I don't drink really but if I feel like drinking a glass of wine will you send me to hell?
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jan 8, 2011 22:36:08 GMT -5
Okay, back to the topic, and apologies for the sidetrack.
Jesus is living (well, reincarnated) proof that one can drink alcohol without being an alcoholic.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jan 9, 2011 13:57:21 GMT -5
Al, one glass of wine is equal to two beers, generally speaking. Those who have never had alcohol will usually get tipsy on one beer. So if a person has two glasses of wine, equal to four beers, he or she is more than likely drunk as the law enforcement sees it. I suggest to you that you not drink two glasses of wine and then drive uptown. The stipulation of how much alcohol is okay is just plain moronic. Those who want alcohol, go for it. Just remember that your liver will disapprove if you drink too much.
|
|