Occasional Drunkenness

[elijah23]

Is there anything wrong with occasional drunkenness? I would say yes.

 

[seekandlisten]

Is there anything wrong with occasional drunkenness? I would say yes.

Then you have your answer. If you think it's wrong for others then I would disagree with you.

 

[mondar]

Is there anything wrong with occasional drunkenness? I would say yes.

Then you have your answer. If you think it's wrong for others then I would disagree with you.

On what basis is anything right or wrong?

 

[seekandlisten]

On what basis is anything right or wrong?

Pretty much our own 'opinions' I would have to say. What is 'right' for me may not be 'right' for you but that doesn't 'logically' or 'spiritually' make it 'wrong', or what is 'wrong' to me may be 'right' for you but that neither makes you 'right' or me 'wrong' does it?

 

[Bent Radar]

Is there anything wrong with occasional drunkenness? I would say yes.

The bible contains many admonitions to avoid drunkenness (mental/physical impairment), but I don't think I would place it on the same level as breaking a a commandment.

 

[Free]

The Bible makes it clear that drunkenness is wrong for anyone who is a follower of Christ.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I see no problem with it all as long as you are not harming yourself and others. I enjoy tying one on every now and then.

 

[elijah23]

I see no problem with it all as long as you are not harming yourself and others. I enjoy tying one on every now and then.

How often is “every now and then�

 

[mondar]

On what basis is anything right or wrong?

Pretty much our own 'opinions' I would have to say. What is 'right' for me may not be 'right' for you but that doesn't 'logically' or 'spiritually' make it 'wrong', or what is 'wrong' to me may be 'right' for you but that neither makes you 'right' or me 'wrong' does it?

You speak as if there are no moral absolutes. Is that what you believe?

 

[seekandlisten]

On what basis is anything right or wrong?

Pretty much our own 'opinions' I would have to say. What is 'right' for me may not be 'right' for you but that doesn't 'logically' or 'spiritually' make it 'wrong', or what is 'wrong' to me may be 'right' for you but that neither makes you 'right' or me 'wrong' does it?

You speak as if there are no moral absolutes. Is that what you believe?

Treat others as you would want to be treated. One 'rule' so to speak, a moral absolute i would say.

 

[mondar]

Pretty much our own 'opinions' I would have to say. What is 'right' for me may not be 'right' for you but that doesn't 'logically' or 'spiritually' make it 'wrong', or what is 'wrong' to me may be 'right' for you but that neither makes you 'right' or me 'wrong' does it?

You speak as if there are no moral absolutes. Is that what you believe?

Treat others as you would want to be treated. One 'rule' so to speak, a moral absolute i would say.

I am not asking for a moralistic cliche, but for you basis of morality. Its called epistemology. Why should I care to treat others as I want to be treated. Again, your giving me nothing but your own opinion.

 

[seekandlisten]

I am not asking for a moralistic cliche, but for you basis of morality. Its called epistemology. Why should I care to treat others as I want to be treated. Again, your giving me nothing but your own opinion.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what your asking? It's not a 'cliche' if you actually apply it now is it? As to why you should treat other as you want to be treated, 'karma' or you 'reap what you sow' type of philosophy. So I have to ask you what exactly you are getting at here? On the flip side I'll ask you a question, what 'moral wrong' can you do by following this 'rule'?

cheers

 

[mondar]

I am not asking for a moralistic cliche, but for you basis of morality. Its called epistemology. Why should I care to treat others as I want to be treated. Again, your giving me nothing but your own opinion.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what your asking? It's not a 'cliche' if you actually apply it now is it? As to why you should treat other as you want to be treated, 'karma' or you 'reap what you sow' type of philosophy. So I have to ask you what exactly you are getting at here? On the flip side I'll ask you a question, what 'moral wrong' can you do by following this 'rule'?

cheers

The question I am asking is how do you know that your moral code is the correct one. I dont see you as defending your ethic, but just simply restating it.

You are denying any moral absolute. Behavior is not "right or wrong" of itself since there is no moral absolute. You are basing ethics on subjective personal preferences.

Let me illustrate your confusion. Your ethic is based on treating others like I like to be treated. I like to be treated by everyone agreeing with me. So if someone says that murder and rape is good, and I like everyone always agreeing with me, according to your ethic.... I should agree with them and say murder and rape is good. That agreement is how I like to be treated. Although if it were someone else that does not think that, I would have to agree with them that murder and rape is bad. So then, murder and rape are neither good nor bad. The only important thing that is morally important is that I agree with them because I like everyone agreeing with me. It is how I like to be treated. Does all this sound wierd? I would see it as a consistent application of your subjective moral system. There is no moral absolute. There is no real right or wrong.

 

[seekandlisten]

The question I am asking is how do you know that your moral code is the correct one. I dont see you as defending your ethic, but just simply restating it.

You are denying any moral absolute. Behavior is not "right or wrong" of itself since there is no moral absolute. You are basing ethics on subjective personal preferences.

Let me illustrate your confusion. Your ethic is based on treating others like I like to be treated. I like to be treated by everyone agreeing with me. So if someone says that murder and rape is good, and I like everyone always agreeing with me, according to your ethic.... I should agree with them and say murder and rape is good. That agreement is how I like to be treated. Although if it were someone else that does not think that, I would have to agree with them that murder and rape is bad. So then, murder and rape are neither good nor bad. The only important thing that is morally important is that I agree with them because I like everyone agreeing with me. It is how I like to be treated. Does all this sound wierd? I would see it as a consistent application of your subjective moral system. There is no moral absolute. There is no real right or wrong.

Well, I think I'm beginning to understand your perspective. I don't agree with the conclusion you take it to though. How many people would want to be on the receiving end of murder and rape? You have to take the 'I' out when you 'apply' the 'treating others as yourself'. Just because someone thinks murder and rape is good doesn't mean that they want to be murdered and raped now do they? This would go along with it being a 'cliche' rather than actually 'living' it. When I say 'treat others as yourself' that means putting others interests before your own, being the 'servant of all'. By saying 'I like to be treated by everyone agreeing with me' that is putting 'I' in front again not the other person. Am I explaining my position any better?

I'll ask you this, what would you say is a moral absolute?

 

[mondar]

The question I am asking is how do you know that your moral code is the correct one. I dont see you as defending your ethic, but just simply restating it.

You are denying any moral absolute. Behavior is not "right or wrong" of itself since there is no moral absolute. You are basing ethics on subjective personal preferences.

Let me illustrate your confusion. Your ethic is based on treating others like I like to be treated. I like to be treated by everyone agreeing with me. So if someone says that murder and rape is good, and I like everyone always agreeing with me, according to your ethic.... I should agree with them and say murder and rape is good. That agreement is how I like to be treated. Although if it were someone else that does not think that, I would have to agree with them that murder and rape is bad. So then, murder and rape are neither good nor bad. The only important thing that is morally important is that I agree with them because I like everyone agreeing with me. It is how I like to be treated. Does all this sound wierd? I would see it as a consistent application of your subjective moral system. There is no moral absolute. There is no real right or wrong.

Well, I think I'm beginning to understand your perspective. I don't agree with the conclusion you take it to though. How many people would want to be on the receiving end of murder and rape? You have to take the 'I' out when you 'apply' the 'treating others as yourself'. Just because someone thinks murder and rape is good doesn't mean that they want to be murdered and raped now do they? This would go along with it being a 'cliche' rather than actually 'living' it.

OK, what about the little white lie, or the lets go to homosexuality. A homosexual might consider it a compliment to have another of the same gender make a pass at him. It would make me feel very uncomfortable. The point here is subjectivism. There can be no real right or wrong.

More then this, I dont think your asking the question why I should treat you as you want to be treated? Your subjectivism is assumed.

When I say 'treat others as yourself' that means putting others interests before your own, being the 'servant of all'. By saying 'I like to be treated by everyone agreeing with me' that is putting 'I' in front again not the other person. Am I explaining my position any better?

I understand what you are saying, but I obviously think it results in no real right or wrong.

I'll ask you this, what would you say is a moral absolute?

The only possibility for a moral absolute is for it to be centered in deity. God's ethic is the perfect objective absolute. Of course in the Garden of Eden the human race (in Adam) chose to rebel against that absolute and establish ourselves as the center of morality. When God is the center of ethics, and his revealed holiness is the only objective moral standard, then murder is wrong because he said it is wrong. Also, God will judge us on the basis of his perfect and absolute standard. Of course this creates a huge problem for mankind, for who has not told at least one little white lie? Who has not said at least one unkind word. We all come short of the divine standard and no one can escape judgment (unless God makes a way of escape).

 

[handy]

When it gets down to it, all of us view morality in two ways:

Either we go with what we feel is right or wrong, and judge everyone and everything else based upon our feelings.

Or, we seek God's will in doing what is right or wrong.

Going by what we feel is right or wrong usually (though not always) takes up a "victim" kind of mentality, meaning that as long as there is no "victim" involved, its right, or OK.

Occasional drunkeness, (as long as one does it responsibly and doesn't drive) has no real victim. Neither do two persons of the same gender engaging in mutually desired sex. Nor does prostitution, smoking pot, etc. etc. etc.

However, God has different views. God sometimes imposes on us moral ethics that have no victim at all, its just something He doesn't want us engaging in, period.

And, He makes it pretty clear what these things are: For all the poor exegeses about homosexuality out there, it's clear from the Scriptures that homosexuality is sin. It's also clear from the Scriptures that, although there is no bar from drinking, drunkenness is sin.

I think the rebellious sin that we have in us is an incredibly strong thing, stronger than we care to admit. And, it's part of that rebellion, when we really feel that something is OK, to decide that it's OK, even when the Scriptures clearly tell us it isn't. I think when we get right down to it, that is the reason why there is so much divide in the opinions of people in the body, (I'm not talking about non-Christians, I mean Christians here) as to what is OK and what isn't. It's just really hard to look at something that hurts no one, even seems to have a certain amount of benefit, and decide that somehow, in someway, the Scriptures got that wrong.

But, the bottom line is, the Scriptures are very clear, drunkenness is sin and therefore is not OK.

 

[seekandlisten]

OK, what about the little white lie, or the lets go to homosexuality. A homosexual might consider it a compliment to have another of the same gender make a pass at him. It would make me feel very uncomfortable. The point here is subjectivism. There can be no real right or wrong.

More then this, I dont think your asking the question why I should treat you as you want to be treated? Your subjectivism is assumed.

'I' is till a part of your 'reasoning'. I'll put it this way, although I might contradict myself in response to your next statement. If I am 'in Christ', my 'self' does not exist anymore so my thoughts/feelings/opinions/perception doesn't matter anymore so to speak. Why would it make you uncomfortable for a homosexual to make a pass at you? 'Self' is coming into play again as the 'reality' is that you would just have to say you were straight and the conversation would be done. I have no control over what others do, but I can 'govern' myself and this is all I can 'control'.

I'll ask you this, what would you say is a moral absolute?

The only possibility for a moral absolute is for it to be centered in deity. God's ethic is the perfect objective absolute. Of course in the Garden of Eden the human race (in Adam) chose to rebel against that absolute and establish ourselves as the center of morality. When God is the center of ethics, and his revealed holiness is the only objective moral standard, then murder is wrong because he said it is wrong. Also, God will judge us on the basis of his perfect and absolute standard. Of course this creates a huge problem for mankind, for who has not told at least one little white lie? Who has not said at least one unkind word. We all come short of the divine standard and no one can escape judgment (unless God makes a way of escape).

Here I will disagree because a 'diety' cannot be an 'absolute'. There is no 'reality check' or 'limit' when it comes to a 'diety'. First we have to establish what 'diety' and then everyone has their own perception of what that 'diety' expects as 'moral'. The conversation at hand on drinking, some Christians say it is ok and some say it is not, so there is no 'absolute' just opinion. One could say Hitler was getting rid of the 'Christ killers' but that wouldn't make it 'moral' would it? Violence against abortion doctors is not 'moral' yet it is 'motivated' by a 'diety' and the list goes on. As far as 'judgement' goes the 'proof is in the pudding' so to speak and the 'pudding' has yet to come so lets deal with the 'now'.

 

[seekandlisten]

But, the bottom line is, the Scriptures are very clear, drunkenness is sin and therefore is not OK.

I just going to present a different perspective on this. What 'drunkenness' leads to is the problem not the action itself. Sort of along the same lines as washing the 'outside of the cup' while the inside is still dirty. One could say 'drunkenness' makes someone beat their wife, but I ask is it the drunkenness or is there a deeper lying 'motivation?' I could never hit a woman so no matter how drunk I get that is not going to come out. Now there are many different opinions here but the point I'm making is to take in all 'aspects'. I have a friend who drinks every single day to the point of drunkenness yet he would give you the shirt off his back if you asked and is one of the nicest people I know. We all have our vices but we should be looking the 'big picture' not focusing in on minor details so to speak. Does that make any sense?

 

[handy]

Nonetheless, the Scriptures make it clear that drunkenness, the state of being drunk itself, not drunk and... (drunk and beating my wife, drunk and running over a kid) is sin.

The problem with moral relativity is that then it all comes down to who is to say what is moral and what isn't. Your own post shows this: In spite of what the very clear concepts of what the Scriptures tell us, Hitler decided to kill the "Christ killers"...

There is an absolute just opinion, God's opinion is both absolute and just. The thing is, we don't want to agree with that, so we get into relativism and justification of things that really are quite straightforward.

 

[Caroline H]

But, the bottom line is, the Scriptures are very clear, drunkenness is sin and therefore is not OK.

I just going to present a different perspective on this. What 'drunkenness' leads to is the problem not the action itself. Sort of along the same lines as washing the 'outside of the cup' while the inside is still dirty. One could say 'drunkenness' makes someone beat their wife, but I ask is it the drunkenness or is there a deeper lying 'motivation?' I could never hit a woman so no matter how drunk I get that is not going to come out. Now there are many different opinions here but the point I'm making is to take in all 'aspects'. I have a friend who drinks every single day to the point of drunkenness yet he would give you the shirt off his back if you asked and is one of the nicest people I know. We all have our vices but we should be looking the 'big picture' not focusing in on minor details so to speak. Does that make any sense?

All of us are capable of far more than we think we are. You can say that you would never hit a woman, but you never know what you would do under certain circumstances. I know this because I did some things that I said I would never ever do, because I found them evil and repulsive, and almost hated anyone who did them. But certain situations in my life led me down a path of sin, and I made some bad decisions and one day I found myself doing the very same thing I thought I was incapable of doing. So good intentions is not what this passage is about. God knows people can have good intentions and still fail, because we are sinful. I think that passages like this serve as a warning to us not to invite sin, because no matter how strong we think we are, when in a state of weakness we are setting ourselves up for failure.