JAK, I don't see how I am attacking you. You repetitively say you see nothing wrong with drinking. So, by asking if you drink, or observing that you have some other motivation for claiming it's ok even though MM has shown how it isn't, why would that be an "attack" especially if you are claiming there is nothing wrong with it? It makes no sense.

How is supporting what you have said in any way slanderous or attacking? You have said yourself that there is nothing wrong with drinking. Just being "drunk", although you could not define it.

Why don't you just tell us what is your motivation for claiming the Bible doesn't speak against drinking? Why is that important to you?

I didn't say you did. I only surmised you have some motivation. What, I do not know.
Huh? Does it or doesn't it?

Perhaps other "certain things" are the motivation? I don't know.

kland,

It is said that Americans are given an incredible right by their United States government--the right to be wrong. Americans have religious freedom. They can worship on any day of the week they might wish, whether or not it is the "right" day. They have wording that speaks of certain "inalienable" rights, including rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I sort of see God giving us these same rights in the Bible. While God may have ability to force us all to live correctly, He does not do so. While God may command certain things of us, He does not force and He does not micro-manage.

I have spoken with missionaries who have had several options before them of places to go; every one of them being a place where they would be able to do much for the Lord. They have prayed earnestly asking God to show them which place they should move to. Surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly if you are well-acquainted with our God), God would not tell them which place to go. He told them it was their choice. God gave them liberty to choose. Anyone of them would be a great option, and God simply did not micro-manage, and make choices for them. God has promised to give us the "desires of your heart." How, then, can God require us, against our wishes, to live a certain, rigid way?

Naturally, God knows what is best for our happiness. He knows that money will not buy it. He knows multiple wives will not bring it. And He knows that alcohol will not give us happiness. He paints clear pictures of these things in His Word. But He does not there say "you must not...." There are certain things that God allows. This allowance has less to do with the rightness or wrongness of the thing, and more to do with God's desire that we should be able to seek happiness through our own choices.

Romans 14 is written along these same lines. It is a principle clearly given in 1 Corinthians 10:29. And there are other passages. Each individual has the right to choose. God wants our happiness and our liberty-- both. In order for God to provide us these essential liberties, He allows certain things which may not be for our best good. While God may allow them, He also seeks to educate us against them. BUT HE WILL NOT FORCE.

God has at times, in order to fulfill His great law of love, a law which requires freedom of choice, given to His people that which is not for their best good. The quail is one such example. King Saul. There are others. But these provisions on His part do not indicate that such things were harmless, good, or without sin. Certainly, they do not indicate that they were best.

Such is the case with alcohol--it was permitted, but never encouraged ("sanctioned").

Along with a recognition of what the Bible actually says on this subject, I guess my image and perspective of the nature of God Himself helps to shape my understanding of it. There is no sense, kland, in ascribing to me ill motivations. You err in doing so. Furthermore, Ellen White clearly states that one should not...well, how about getting it from her directly.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

time to do some music "editing" (He turned the water into GRAPEJUICE)

That is exactly what He did.

He turned the water into unfermented wine, or what we would call today, grape juice.

I believe Christ turned the water into delicious unfermented grape juice.

But is there a time for alcohol?



A number of Adventists I have known have used this "prescription" by Ellen White as they go to bed in the evening when they suffer from a severe cold, reporting they were fully healed and able to go to work the following morning.

Johann,

In your quote, it does not say how she used the alcohol. It may have been as a mouth rinse (gargle), or it may have been topical. I'm not saying it's impossible that she drank it, only pointing out that there are other ways to interpret.

I'm in agreement that at times alcohol can be used judiciously. The key thought, from the Bible, is "moderation." And "moderation" means different levels for different things. For example, "solanine" is a poison found in tomatoes, potatoes, etc. It is much higher in poison nightshade. One may be able to eat a potato without harm, but a few nightshade berries could cause death. The actual amount would be very small, but it might not take much. "Moderation" would mean different things with respect to honey, yeast, salt, vinegar, etc. Moderation might even be different from one person to the next. Balance is important, and one cannot be moderate and be an extremist at the same time.

I don't drink. I never will. I will never teach people to drink. But I cannot, biblically, say one should never drink.

I have a friend in Laos right now who is dying. Liver cancer. They say it's one of the most painful kinds of cancer. He is not a drinker. He's well-respected. But I would not criticize him right now if he were to drink. He likely has but days left to live. He is already quite weak. And he is in pain.



At this stage of his life, that text is for him. In his case, instead of alcohol, he may be using the "vegetarian" kind--morphine.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A matter of interpretation, yes. To most people, I presume, you seem very sensible. To others, what you say, may seem liberal.

Could this not apply also in many other cases, and even more so where there is no "thus saith the Lord"?

This reminds of a case at the state hospital where a 103 year old lady asked my wife to give her some coffee with sugar. Then she asked my wife if it was really unhealthy to use some sugar in the coffee. Should she have started giving her a lecture on both being unhealthy since she had but a short time to live?

Government regulations forbids the nurses to preach to the patients.

Johann, do you feel there is a point where someone is too old to hear the gospel?

Also, if you think preaching refers to the health message, do you think nurses are preaching when they give medicine to the patients?
That is, government sanctioned preaching?