JAK, I don't consider this is off-topic. It's part of the argumentation. If drinking alcohol is OK because the Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit it, the same is true about polygamy and slavery.
GC said if polygamy was a sin, God wouldn't have commanded it. I said God didn't command, but tolerated polygamy and divorce in the OT times.


As I have already said, divorce wasn't allowed in cases of infidelity in the OT. The guilty party was stoned and the innocent party could then remarry.


Because of that, are multiple marriages OK?

I'd appreciate some scriptural support to your statements. I think many times people are quick to make assumptions that are not backed up in scripture, just because they seem logical. Furthermore, when you have found the Biblical support, you may find that it differs somewhat with your present understanding. For example, why did Joseph not consider having Mary stoned?

Again, support please?

This is simply not true. This is one of the most ubiquitous misunderstandings in our church today relative to marriage. Adultery has a specific definition in the Bible, and having sex with a virgin out of wedlock was NOT adultery. Having two wives was NOT adultery. Adultery is when one has relations with a person who belongs to someone else, i.e. "stealing." If the other individual was not married and/or was not improperly divorced, it could not constitute adultery. Now, fornication may be another matter. There are several terms in the Bible for a reason. Each has its own definition.

Again, if having multiple wives constituted "adultery," then why would God command someone who had more than one wife to make sure they gave equal time in bed to both? Would that not be commanding "adultery?" Obviously, God would not do that. So it is our definitions which are incorrect. We must be careful to define the terms properly.

Having relations with one's wife is never "adultery" except if the wife were improperly divorced (not on account of her husband's adultery, with said husband still living). To marry five virgins, and have them all as wives, is licit. "Illicit sex" is when one does not have the rights of a conjugal relationship. Marriage is what gives one those rights. If one is married to five people, one then has those rights with all five.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Again, where is your scripture? Prove it!

If God gave instructions always for stoning, what about the "bitter water" that was given in cases of "jealousy?"

And what about the cases for where a man would force a virgin?



Obviously, no stoning there. They weren't married either. I suppose, Rosangela, you would have defined that as adultery. But the Bible doesn't. This was not adultery because the damsel was neither married nor betrothed (engaged to marry). An engagement, in the Bible, was frequently treated as equal with actual marriage. To force a betrothed woman was to "steal" her from her fiance. That would have been tantamount to adultery. But if she were not betrothed, not married, not "taken"...it simply could not be "adultery."

Now, how would these rules apply to wine? Are there similar legalizations for the use of wine, e.g. not being a priest, deacon, or king? If you were not "married" to spiritual leadership, and were not "betrothed" to leadership (e.g. a prince), was wine consumption then acceptable?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Bump for GC:

Bump for GC:

I'm sorry, I completely reject this line of reasoning. Polygamy is completely different from slavery which is different from alcohol. Justifying one does not justify the other. Those are separate arguments of their own. If you are trying to convince me that drinking is a sin, this argument won't do it.

Prove what? That polygamy is adultery? Please define adultery. This is how I define it, in its obvious definition: to have sexual relations with someone if you are already married, or if the person is already married.


This is when the husband wasn't sure about whether adultery had occurred or not. How could someone who hadn't been proven guilty be stoned?


This involves single persons, so technically it's not adultery. The penalty was marrying.


The fact that technically it isn't an adultery doesn't mean that it isn't a transgression of the seventh commandment. Any sexual immorality is a transgression of the seventh commandment and is a sin, in the same way that anger is a transgression of the fifth commandment and is a sin.

"Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two,' He says, 'shall become one flesh.' ... Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body" (1 Cor. 6:16-18).


No, in view of what I said above.

You don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm saying. Polygamy is different from slavery, which is different from alcohol. But none of them is explicitly prohibited in the Bible. However, I don't believe polygamy is OK and slavery is OK just because they aren't explicitly prohibited in the Bible. So, this argument is not to convince you that drinking is a sin; it's to show you that an argument saying that alcohol is OK because it isn't prohibited in the Bible is invalid.

The argument from silence is not the basis for the assertion that alcohol consumption is not a sin. Rather, it is a response to MM's (and possibly your) assertion that Scripture specifically condemns drinking. I find NO texts which do this and, evidently, neither does anyone else.

I maintain that the use of alcohol was an accepted aspect of Jewish life, and was not viewed as sinfull. Chronic, habitual drunkeness, however, WAS condemned as sinfull.

Many arguments can be made against the use of alcohol on the basis of health (studies about middle-aged men not withstanding), social stability and responsibility, family peace and security, etc., all of which I agree with. But it is not a sin, according to Scripture.

I addressed this in my post #133402: