On Communion

[GodsGrace]

What does the person who is allergic to alcohol do? Or the person who is a recovering alcoholic? Some churches use both for these reasons.

Hi Deborah13

I've never heard of a church that believes in the real presence using grape juice.
What they would do is use only the wafer. I explained to Roro above.

Would you be able to tell me a presence believing church that DOES use grape juice?
It seems highly unlikely to me - but I'm willing to learn.

Wondering

 

[Roro1972]

Thanks for the answers each have given. I was just curious about how others thought. All the churches I've been in use juice not wine and I would not bring these questions before the church I believe either is ok. and would not mindif someone needed to abstain.

 

[GodsGrace]

I agree with this. I would also mention that it is conceivable to me, that Ignatius would not mention symbolism, since the topic of the letter is not actually about communion.


The point was to note that the significance of the communion was that it shows his death. Hence the body that we are showing reverence for is in the form of giving up his life. Hence when he say this is my body which shall be given for you, he is talking about his personal sacrifice.

Everything to do with God could be called sacred, yet as pertains to life, pretty much everything we experience has to do with God. I like your definition. But do you realize that a sign of something means symbolic of something?

The blood of Christ is not to be taken lightly, that's for sure. I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss it. Let me say, that I don't take offense, and I do not want to offend. I sense no guile in you, I sense only Love.




"He was crucified". That is past tense. So, to do this in remembrance of me because it shows his death where he was crucified means to me, that the body we discern when we eat, is the one nailed to the cross, and not the bread turned into his dead flesh. In other words, it's not cannibalism Jesus is talking about.

Personally, I first meditate on the extent he suffered for our sin. Then as honestly as possible I look at myself, to see whether I am carrying my cross as I should, and also whether I am making the cross of someone else more burdensome.. That's how I eat and drink him. That's where I believe his righteousness unto eternal life is realized. So as to Love others as I would want to be loved. That's where I dwell in him and he in me.

But in all honesty, I don't meditate on being convinced the bread and wine turned into his flesh and blood so I can dwell in him and he in me.
John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Hi Childeye,
I'm in a different time zone and apologize for the number of continuous posts of mine. This is moving along quickly!

Okay. Regardng Ignatius and posting quotes. It makes me a little nuts. I mean, you could take anything anybody says and prove something by it. We have to go with the general idea, IMO. Ignatius believed in the real presence. It merely has to be accepted. In your post no. 135 to Jim Parker you say how you think something Clement said "could be construed" to mean something. Clement thought what he thought. The big picture is that he thought Jesus was not normal in some ways - simple. Like not needing food. There's no need to "construe". See what I mean? You're a deep thinker!

I don't say this to change the subject but just to put forth that we could go on with this forever. Because either way could be reasoned out and/or proven.

I'll answer your post but before I forget: John 6:40 says that we're saved by believing in the Son
John 6:54-55 says that whoever eats Jesus' flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life because His flesh is true food and His blood true drink.

This is almost scary if you stop to think about it. It means that we must believe in Him in a spiritual way (40) but we must ALSO eat and drink (54-55). Can this mean that as a believer of 40 we must now use HIM to eat and drink in a real way (not easily understandable) to have eternal life? And what are the ramifications of this to persons who receive unworthily?? I agree with your definition, BTW.

I'm not saying you need to receive communion to be saved. You could accept the Lord and be on an island and never join in communion services. But somehow we're fed in some way. Somehow we're made one. There's some interesting experimentation going on right now that proves that if something is "watching" a molecule it'll act differently. Someone from here on CF posted a youtube link. Wish I could remember it - maybe you'd know how to find it? Also, some experiments going on that show that words can change atoms at the molecular level. I just find this interesting and put it out there - I don't intend to prove anything since I'm not a scientist.

Re your answer above. I already pretty much answered to the first two pp's. No use going on about this.

Re the sacraments being a visible sign of the sacred and the grace of God. Correct. The "sign" is reminding us of something, or bringing us into something. It's symbolic, as you say. But the signs are real. In baptism the sign is water with the words In The Name of.... The water we use is real. In Communion the sign is the bread and wine, with the words Do This In Memory... why can't they be real also?

I agree with everything you say that comes after the word "personally" in the next to last pp. And if you, in all good conscience, can accept the bread and wine only symbolically, then that's how it'll have to be. We will certainly not be judged by something we could not understand. And each one of us will be judged by our understanding - not someone else's!

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

A false dichotomy is to claim two things must be either or, and imply they cannot be both. So I was saying it is a false dichotomy to argue that one can argue how much of jesus is man and how much is divine. I probably confused you because it was brought forth on this thread that Clement allegedly denied the full humanity of Jesus. I find it to be arguing semantics. The first schism happened essentially over the same argument. But it was over whether Jesus was begotten or made. But yet Jesus was not born of Adam like all other men


So you arrived at the conclusion that the bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus of your own accord ? In other words no one told you to interpret it in scripture that way? Cannibalism?
Jesus did say you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but I think he's referring to his death and not the Eucharist, even though the Eucharist is referring to his death also. Consequently it's not entirely wrong to say he's referring to the Eucharist. That's probably the mix up.

Childeye,

Someone told me a lot of things I don't agree with. How does purgatory sound to you?
So yes, I've studied much and have come to my own conclusions but I'm not a solo (SOLO not SOLA) scriptura person. I believe 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God. I believe Jeremiah 31:34 They shall not teach again...For they shall know me.

Books could be written on each book of the bible. I firmly believe that if you read it with an open mind and with the help of the Holy Spirit, you can understand almost all of it on your own. The bible is able to be its own textbook.

So, yes, after much thought and theological reasoning, I've come to the conclusion that John 6 is literal. But I respect the symbolic opinion too since it doesn't take you away from God.

Re the false dichotomy. You did say "false". Ooops!

Wondering

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Deborah13

I've never heard of a church that believes in the real presence using grape juice.
What they would do is use only the wafer. I explained to Roro above.

Would you be able to tell me a presence believing church that DOES use grape juice?
It seems highly unlikely to me - but I'm willing to learn.

Wondering

Hi Wondering,
I was talking about a transubstantiation church.

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Wondering,
I was talking about a transubstantiation church.

Okay. That's what I thought.
A transubstantiation church will use only wine.
(it's the non-transubstn churches that could use grape juice)

Wondering

 

[childeye]

Okay. Regardng Ignatius and posting quotes. It makes me a little nuts. I mean, you could take anything anybody says and prove something by it. We have to go with the general idea, IMO. Ignatius believed in the real presence. It merely has to be accepted. In your post no. 135 to Jim Parker you say how you think something Clement said "could be construed" to mean something. Clement thought what he thought. The big picture is that he thought Jesus was not normal in some ways - simple. Like not needing food. There's no need to "construe". See what I mean? You're a deep thinker!

We know Ignatius believed in the real presence, as do I and so does everyone I know who is called Christian. It's how we define what that means that differs. Jesus said wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst. The presence of Christ is real at the communion. Luke 24:30-32.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Construe simply means to read and interpret what is read. There is nothing that is written that isn't construed by the reader. As for Clement of Alexandria, his words make perfect sense if one envisions that he is talking about the risen Christ who ate bread in the scripture above and was thought he was a ghost in the scripture below.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

I don't say this to change the subject but just to put forth that we could go on with this forever. Because either way could be reasoned out and/or proven.

True, but to count Clement of Alexandria a heretic, is a dangerous proposition when we are judged by how we judge others. I would rather seek to exonerate and be wrong, than condemn and be wrong. So keeping in mind the scriptures posted above and that Clement is talking about the risen Christ, let us re- read this that Clement was accused of being a heretic for.

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, not for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as afterwards some did certainly supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain."

It makes perfect sense that the resurrected Christ, who had just been crucified and risen from the dead, would be generally dispassionate and not emotionally moved by either pleasure or pain.

I'll answer your post but before I forget: John 6:40 says that we're saved by believing in the Son
John 6:54-55 says that whoever eats Jesus' flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life because His flesh is true food and His blood true drink.

But Jesus said this also.
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
It is clear that he is talking about his flesh because the line before it says this: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

This is almost scary if you stop to think about it. It means that we must believe in Him in a spiritual way (40) but we must ALSO eat and drink (54-55). Can this mean that as a believer of 40 we must now use HIM to eat and drink in a real way (not easily understandable) to have eternal life? And what are the ramifications of this to persons who receive unworthily?? I agree with your definition, BTW.

I realize it can be scary!!!! But when faced with the unknown fear and superstition can compromise our better judgment. In all honesty, I believe Jesus meant to offend with those words. He had sought solitude from the crowds that he had fed, and they had followed him from the other side of the lake. And so he said this that he knew would offend them, as a means of getting rid of them. There is no way anyone could have comprehended that Jesus was talking about his inevitable death on the cross, or the Eucharist which is the sacrament of the event. There is nothing to be afraid of and I'll prove it. We will be judged either worthy or unworthy when we partake of the communion, but God's judgment is true and His judgment is good and righteous and from perfect Love unto perfect Love. There, that should take care of those pesky fears.

I'm not saying you need to receive communion to be saved. You could accept the Lord and be on an island and never join in communion services. But somehow we're fed in some way. Somehow we're made one. There's some interesting experimentation going on right now that proves that if something is "watching" a molecule it'll act differently. Someone from here on CF posted a youtube link. Wish I could remember it - maybe you'd know how to find it? Also, some experiments going on that show that words can change atoms at the molecular level. I just find this interesting and put it out there - I don't intend to prove anything since I'm not a scientist.

It is factual that molecules can reorder, that is because all things are built on faith, and quantum mechanics are showing this to be true. Water is interesting. Water bears witness unto God according to scripture. I don't know what link was given to youtube. But I have seen, that If one plays Mozart to a glass of water and then freezes it, it will form into symmetrically beautiful crystal formations. But play heavy metal to the water and freeze it, and it forms into chaotic and ugly fractured forms.

Re the sacraments being a visible sign of the sacred and the grace of God. Correct. The "sign" is reminding us of something, or bringing us into something. It's symbolic, as you say. But the signs are real. In baptism the sign is water with the words In The Name of.... The water we use is real. In Communion the sign is the bread and wine, with the words Do This In Memory... why can't they be real also?

As long as one distinguishes the sign from that which it is a sign of, I don't see a problem. I have already mentioned that people were persecuted over who had the power to change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Some said only the apostles, or those whom they appointed could do it. But thousands were breaking bread in their own houses from the get go of the Gospel and there is no evidence that any apostle ever appointed any person to have such a power. Here is another example of how a sacrament can be abused:
Judges 8:27King James Version (KJV)
27 And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither a whoring after it: which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house

I agree with everything you say that comes after the word "personally" in the next to last pp. And if you, in all good conscience, can accept the bread and wine only symbolically, then that's how it'll have to be. We will certainly not be judged by something we could not understand. And each one of us will be judged by our understanding - not someone else's!

Amen, these are words that sow accord, and not division. Did I not say I sense no guile in you? I am right there with you in agreement. Even though we see the cross from two different perspectives, it is the same cross of our Lord.
1 Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but Love edifieth.
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

 

[childeye]

Childeye,

Someone told me a lot of things I don't agree with. How does purgatory sound to you?
So yes, I've studied much and have come to my own conclusions but I'm not a solo (SOLO not SOLA) scriptura person. I believe 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God. I believe Jeremiah 31:34 They shall not teach again...For they shall know me.


Books could be written on each book of the bible. I firmly believe that if you read it with an open mind and with the help of the Holy Spirit, you can understand almost all of it on your own. The bible is able to be its own textbook.

So, yes, after much thought and theological reasoning, I've come to the conclusion that John 6 is literal. But I respect the symbolic opinion too since it doesn't take you away from God.

Re the false dichotomy. You did say "false". Ooops!

Wondering

Yes, I said, that to argue whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine is arguing a false dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive.

Therefore, I'm not solo scriptura either, depending on what one means when they say solo scriptura. I only believe in what is self-evident.

I will not lie and say I believe something that I don't believe and God would know if I'm lying. I must be persuaded by evidence, so that I do not lie to God. But I begin in faith that God is good. Those who know, must serve those who do not. The Truth is not impotent.

I know that a single word carries two meanings, one good and one bad. I know that they reverse in good or bad connotation, relative to ones direction to or away from God, in faith or unfaith. Two people can approach God from opposite directions and the meanings of their witness may appear to be contradictory in their words but they are not. This sets up a scenario where what is good and faithful to one person is bad and unfaithful for another, and yet to God, they are both right. I know that Satan plays the ends against the middle.

Therefore I study semantics so as to discern the spirit behind all words and thoughts. Of course the Holy Spirit has been my Guide. Thanks be to God for His Light always True.

 

[GodsGrace]

We know Ignatius believed in the real presence, as do I and so does everyone I know who is called Christian. It's how we define what that means that differs. Jesus said wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst. The presence of Christ is real at the communion. Luke 24:30-32.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Construe simply means to read and interpret what is read. There is nothing that is written that isn't construed by the reader. As for Clement of Alexandria, his words make perfect sense if one envisions that he is talking about the risen Christ who ate bread in the scripture above and was thought he was a ghost in the scripture below.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.


True, but to count Clement of Alexandria a heretic, is a dangerous proposition when we are judged by how we judge others. I would rather seek to exonerate and be wrong, than condemn and be wrong. So keeping in mind the scriptures posted above and that Clement is talking about the risen Christ, let us re- read this that Clement was accused of being a heretic for.

In regard to the Savior, however, it were ridiculous to suppose that the body demanded, as a body, the necessary aids for its maintenance. For He ate, note for the sake of the body, which had its continuance from a holy power, but lest those in His company might happen to think otherwise of Him, just as afterwards some did certainly supposed that He had appeared as a mere phantasm. He was in general dispassionate; and no movement of feeling penetrated Him, whether pleasure or pain." 2

But Jesus said this also.
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
It is clear that he is talking about his flesh because the line before it says this: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

I realize it can be scary!!!! But when faced with the unknown fear and superstition can compromise our better judgment. In all honesty, I believe Jesus meant to offend with those words. He had sought solitude from the crowds that he had fed, and they had followed him from the other side of the lake. And so he said this that he knew would offend them, as a means of getting rid of them. There is no way anyone could have comprehended that Jesus was talking about his inevitable death on the cross, or the Eucharist which is the sacrament of the event. There is nothing to be afraid of and I'll prove it. We will be judged either worthy or unworthy when we partake of the communion, but God's judgment is true and His judgment is good and righteous and from perfect Love unto perfect Love. There, that should take care of those pesky fears.

It is factual that molecules can reorder, that is because all things are built on faith, and quantum mechanics are showing this to be true. Water is interesting. Water bears witness unto God according to scripture. I don't know what link was given to youtube. But I have seen, that If one plays Mozart to a glass of water and then freezes it, it will form into symmetrically beautiful crystal formations. But play heavy metal to the water and freeze it, and it forms into chaotic and ugly fractured forms.


As long as one distinguishes the sign from that which it is a sign of, I don't see a problem. I have already mentioned that people were persecuted over who had the power to change the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. Some said only the apostles, or those whom they appointed could do it. But thousands were breaking bread in their own houses from the get go of the Gospel and there is no evidence that any apostle ever appointed any person to have such a power. Here is another example of how a sacrament can be abused:
Judges 8:27King James Version (KJV)
27 And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither a whoring after it: which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house
Amen, these are words that sow accord, and not division. Did I not say I sense no guile in you? I am right there with you in agreement. Even though we see the cross from two different perspectives, it is the same cross of our Lord.
1 Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but Love edifieth.
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Hi Childeye,
Don't you love The Road To Emmaus? That was the first liturgy! Jesus explained to the two disciples all that the O. T. had said of Him - the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. And all that He had to suffer. They recognized Him when He broke the bread. His broken body and His blood shed. And sure they thought he was a phantasm. They knew He was dead. And when they didn't need His physical presence anymore, He vanished. But their hearts did burn within...

I find it interesting that what we believe colors all that we read. You say:

And so he said this that he knew would offend them, as a means of getting rid of them.

You think that Jesus said the hard saying (eat and drink the b and b) to get rid of them. I think He said it because it had to be said and they just left.

Judges 8:27 - sacraments being abused. Can baptism be abused? I think communion can. I guess baptism can too - if it's not sincere and just for show.

You also say:

Even though we see the cross from two different perspectives, it is the same cross of our Lord.

I doubt we see the cross from two different perspectives. I think we see it the same way from what I read. It's just John 6 we don't agree on - I think we agree on the Cross.

No guile in you either.

In Christ
Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I said, that to argue whether Jesus was fully human or fully divine is arguing a false dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive.

Therefore, I'm not solo scriptura either, depending on what one means when they say solo scriptura. I only believe in what is self-evident.

I will not lie and say I believe something that I don't believe and God would know if I'm lying. I must be persuaded by evidence, so that I do not lie to God. But I begin in faith that God is good. Those who know, must serve those who do not. The Truth is not impotent.

I know that a single word carries two meanings, one good and one bad. I know that they reverse in good or bad connotation, relative to ones direction to or away from God, in faith or unfaith. Two people can approach God from opposite directions and the meanings of their witness may appear to be contradictory in their words but they are not. This sets up a scenario where what is good and faithful to one person is bad and unfaithful for another, and yet to God, they are both right. I know that Satan plays the ends against the middle.

Therefore I study semantics so as to discern the spirit behind all words and thoughts. Of course the Holy Spirit has been my Guide. Thanks be to God for His Light always True.

Well, your 4th pp makes me understand why you cling so to words. I did notice this about you immediately. I did say you are a deep thinker! And now I know why.

You say something very important which I've also repeated a couple of times in our discussions:

I know that they reverse in good or bad connotation, relative to ones direction to or away from God, in faith or unfaith.

This is exactly what I mean when I've been saying that I dislike arguing about something that does not take you away from God. I discern the Spirit in you and know that you are with God.

Wondering

 

[childeye]

No guile in you either.

It takes one to know one. I learned that on the playground.

 

[Deborah13]

Okay. That's what I thought.
A transubstantiation church will use only wine.
(it's the non-transubstn churches that could use grape juice)

Wondering

Opps, I did it again. I meant to say 'wasn't' not 'was'. I wasn't talking about transubstantiation churches.
Lately I have been dropping conjunctions!! I must be getting old or just lazy fingers. Sorry.

 

[GodsGrace]

Opps, I did it again. I meant to say 'wasn't' not 'was'. I wasn't talking about transubstantiation churches.
Lately I have been dropping conjunctions!! I must be getting old or just lazy fingers. Sorry.

I had a feeling you didn't mean what you wrote.

Welcome to the club!

Wondering

 

[WIP]

Im not sure thats why im asking these questions. Hoping someone will have a reasonable answer. I do think an alcoholic could live with one sip of wine once a year; I could be wrong though. this may pertain to the allergic and may even apply to the alcoholic it could be ok for them to not use wine the rest would not have that kind of reason so they should use wine. Now the biggest problem I see with communion is that churches allow non saved people to partake which I feel is wrong.

Personally, I think this question could best be answered by a recovering alcoholic. For the rest of us, all we can do is speculate without any real knowledge about the topic.

 

[Roro1972]

I apologize, Ill me more careful about posting my thoughts and stick to things I have experience with.

 

[childeye]

Even though we see the cross from two different perspectives, it is the same cross of our Lord.

What I meant by this, is that I believe everyone has their own unique perspective of the cross, unless of course they are just believing what they are told to believe.

Which is exactly what I take Augustine to mean when he says this:
If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith.

This also elaborates further on what I mean, when I say there's supposed to be judgment at the cup of Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

What I meant by this, is that I believe everyone has their own unique perspective of the cross, unless of course they are just believing what they are told to believe.

Which is exactly what I take Augustine to mean when he says this:
If you, therefore, are Christ's body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord's table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying "Amen" to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith.

This also elaborates further on what I mean, when I say there's supposed to be judgment at the cup of Christ.

Hi Childeye,

This just popped up but it's time for me to go. it is interesting though.
I hope we're getting away from the body and wine, real presence discussion? In your post it says "Amen" to our personal signature.

I'll say that when a Catholic and Lutheran says Amen before receiving communion, they are saying Amen to the belief that it's the body and blood. Amen: Yes, I believe or It is so. An affirmation of what the priest is offering and we know what he is offering in these churches.

As far as our unique perspective on the cross - yes. This is interesting. But you're quoiting Augustine so I'd have to read at least a few pp's. But quick:

You say everyone has their own unique perspective unless they're told what to believe. Okay. But are we, OTOH, allowed to believe whatever we want to? How far are you willing to go with this unique perspective idea?
Is not the message we receive from the cross the same for everyone? How would it differ?

Let me give you the meanings of solo and sola scriptura and then if you want to elaborate a bit more on my questions, I'll get back to you tomorrow. Different time zone here.

Sola Scriptura
Churches that believe in the bible ONLY. Any concept or theology has to come plainly from biblical sources. No one verse can be taken to mean anything on its own but must be corroborated with other verses and be a complete concept easily understood and identified.

For instance Catholics also have Tradition. Sayings and writings that were handed down from the apostles so they would not be sola scriptura.

Solo Scriptura
Someone who reads the bible on their own and come to their own conclusions and do not accept any church as authority.

I explain so we're on the same page - not because you might not know.
The definitions are my own - apologies to any theologians out there.

Now we all do the solo thing a little. But it could be dangerous if you think about it. Thousands of man-made religions!

Tomorrow.

W

 

[GodsGrace]

I apologize, Ill me more careful about posting my thoughts and stick to things I have experience with.

Roro,
If we stick only to things we have experience with, how will we ever learn anything new?!

Questions are good. I think your questions were answered, no?

W

 

[Roro1972]

Roro,
If we stick only to things we have experience with, how will we ever learn anything new?!

Questions are good. I think your questions were answered, no?

W

Yes my questions were answered and I thank all for the help. The post you are replying to was more of a statement I made than a question.
so I felt comfortable making it and someone thought different. I started learning about alcohol around 6 or 7.