Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You wouldn't demand your right to drink EVEN as a Christian having told me all you have about “Jesus…” and that it's not forbidden by God, we shouldn't make higher standards,…?? You wouldn't defend your God-given right? Believe me…if I believed as you do, I would. The fact of the matter is this: There are many with a problem with alcohol and in my own head, by continuing to drink “moderately” and thus remain legal, allows, affords, and encourages them and others to drink as well. Their “choice” of complete abstinence is made difficult by your “right” to drink.

Bavarian Wheels,

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.

When you can present a Biblical position that is consistent logically that supports the standard you are advocating, I'll be delighted to consider it.

In the meantime, I'll follow the scriptural admonition,

II Cor 2:16-17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

It's nice of you to offer to be the judge. I choose not to accept your invitation.

Regards,

Bart

You fail. I wasn't presenting a Biblical position...you've presented that drinking is encouraged through your Biblical interpretation. Just calling you on your interpretation and lack of enough belief in your interpretation to stand on it. I don't advocate drinking...you do.

Not a judgement call...sincere question...but I guess the answer is not within your ability to answer with any real substanciation because IF your position was Biblical, it would be easy to answer. Besides, it is not me promoting "drinking" as Biblical...it is you. Therefore it is your "Biblical" position that needs some explanation in regard to the "standard" you promote and the question of logic in your "abstinence" from alcohol when it's not "Biblical" to abstain from alcohol...especially when you claim it was for work within a religious...and I'll assume...Christian organization. What are the moral implications in working and teaching for a religious organization in which you don't believe as they do? I really wonder this as you seem to take morality seriously. Since you decline to answer, it forces me to make a judgement call. If that is what you prefer...that being that simply not standing up for your beliefs and giving in to another person's or organization's beliefs to gain a job seems to me very suspect to say the least. By their fruit you will know...fruit in this case being simply the logical implications of your admitted actions.

Btw...love the text.

You promote drinking to be well within Biblical consistency and standard...yet one other...I put forth as Christ Himself claimed...but then that Sabbath thing is only OT...and only for Jews. Should'nt marriage be "Jewish" too then if it was instituted at creation and prior even to the Sabbath? But this is a question for another topic.

For now, I respect your opinion that alcohol consumption is within the standard of Biblical interpretation for the Christian, however I can't respect your lack of conviction in such thinking by your own admission. Either you're hot or cold...or something like that anyway.
.
.

Bavarian Wheels,

I've presented that consumption of Alcohol is permitted, not encouraged. That is your word and it is representative of your methods of argument and debate.

If you wish to have a biblical discussion as to the drinking of alcohol, you're welcome to present your case. I've seen several and never one that wasn't easily dismissed. By the standard you've attempted to apply to me, Jesus wasn't hot or cold. It's simple absurd and appears to me to represent a pharisaical mindset, but that's between you and God. I'll not return your words, tone and attitude in kind and simply take it as frustration on your part to convey and defend your position.

There are many issues that I don't agree with my former denomination or my current one for that matter. In fact, I don't know of a group that perfectly represents my beliefs in all regards. The issue raises to whether they are cardinal doctrines or not. The position on alcohol is not one that has any great significance for me and I really don't care and am very willing to forego if the standards of the group I am serving with hold Pastor's to a higher standard. That would be a very petty issue to break fellowship over.

Should I presume that you hold 100% to the beliefs and practices of the Seventh Day Adventists whom you profess to belong to? I recall you making comments on this board that you don't agree with some elements of it? How do you stand by your own standards?

If you feel the need to respond and wish to attack me personally, you're welcome to do so. It simply demonstrates that your position has nothing left to offer and I'm quite content to allow this thread and the issues discussed speak for the consistency of each of our thinking and positions.

Perhaps one day we can discuss it with Jesus; maybe even over a glass of wine, if it's OK with you.

Blessings to you,

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:Bavarian Wheels,

I've presented that consumption of Alcohol is permitted, not encouraged. That is your word and it is representative of your methods of argument and debate.

Wait...with this I'll take issue also... So what you are saying here is that whatever Christ did, and you find as permitted, shouldn't be encouraged? That might be something to contend with both scripturally, logically, morally, and ethically. Scripturally, delve deeper into "wine". Logically, it's just not logical to claim Jesus did...and not encourage the action. Morally...if Christ did it, it is morally correct...no? Ethically...if a denomination professes Christianity as their basis...how can they ethically ask any of their empolyees (pastors) to refrain or abstain from that which Jesus Himself did and encouraged having made water to "wine"??

Canuckster1127 wrote:If you wish to have a biblical discussion as to the drinking of alcohol, you're welcome to present your case. I've seen several and never one that wasn't easily dismissed. By the standard you've attempted to apply to me, Jesus wasn't hot or cold. It's simple absurd and appears to me to represent a pharisaical mindset, but that's between you and God.

Not so if looked through the interpretation that Christ didn't make alcoholic wine...However, if in fact Christ made alcoholic wine, I will stand on my logic and say Christ was neither hot nor cold. I'm not afraid of this at all...see that's the difference between you and I...I will stand up for my beliefs.

Here you go...and you can quote me on this anytime.

If Christ, when he turned water to wine, made the wine into wine with alcohol already in it, Christ was neither hot nor cold on the subject of alcohol consumption. If Christ, when in the Last Supper with his disciples, served alcoholic wine as representing His blood shed for sin, Christ was neither hot nor cold on the subject of alcohol consumption.

How's that for pharisaical? Will that give you enough firepower against me?

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'll not return your words, tone and attitude in kind and simply take it as frustration on your part to convey and defend your position.

You're certainly a better person than I am...my humble applause.

Canuckster1127 wrote:There are many issues that I don't agree with my former denomination or my current one for that matter. In fact, I don't know of a group that perfectly represents my beliefs in all regards.

Nor do I.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The issue raises to whether they are cardinal doctrines or not. The position on alcohol is not one that has any great significance for me and I really don't care and am very willing to forego if the standards of the group I am serving with hold Pastor's to a higher standard. That would be a very petty issue to break fellowship over.

I beg to differ...the hot question really is if Jesus made "alcoholic wine" and served alcoholic wine for the last supper? I find this hardly less than VERY significant. You don't because your own interpretation says it was wine containing alcohol...yet your actions speak louder than your words of your conviction on the matter.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Should I presume that you hold 100% to the beliefs and practices of the Seventh Day Adventists whom you profess to belong to? I recall you making comments on this board that you don't agree with some elements of it? How do you stand by your own standards?

Yes...better question for you on this matter would be if I was employed by the SDA Church as a pastor...then I would be in the same hot water as you or cold....as you seem to be neither on the subject. The fact of the matter is that, yes, there are differences in interpretation between me and the SDA Church. Not so much in the now 28 fundamentals...although I could make a case for that too, but in deeper interpretation on, The Investigative Judgement, SDA Catholicism (rampant among many Latino SDA congregations), use and interpretation of Ellen White,...yet I find SDAism to be closest to my core beliefs which dictate my values.

I'm not employed by the SDA Church and attend at my own free will. You, on the other hand, were employed and apparently teaching the beliefs of whatever denomination it was. Is that not some moral criss-crossings there?

Canuckster1127 wrote:If you feel the need to respond and wish to attack me personally, you're welcome to do so. It simply demonstrates that your position has nothing left to offer and I'm quite content to allow this thread and the issues discussed speak for the consistency of each of our thinking and positions.

No attacks...simple questions of logic and consistency...if you're threatened by such I suggest you rethink your beliefs and HOLD to those you believe in and not be lukewarm on the subject(s) especially when you are representing an organization in a position of authority.

No attacks...plain talk.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Perhaps one day we can discuss it with Jesus; maybe even over a glass of wine, if it's OK with you.

Blessings to you,

Bart

If I'm wrong...we will. If I'm right...we will, but over grape juice...k?
.
.

Sorry I'm late guys... These things may have already been addressed but I couldn't resist.

BavarianWheels wrote:.Are you saying, Gman, that the actual effects of alcohol on society are LESS than the effects of prostitution on society? Simple to look up these days with the internet and all...Alcohol related deaths is the number three...cancer being number one...I couldn't find "number two" off hand...but I'll place a small wager it's not prostitution. One website listed a few facts...

The CDC's list of leading causes of death: CDC leading causes of death - 2005

CDC - Alcohol-Attributable Deaths where they claim 75k deaths attributed to alcohol in 2001...and we know that these statistics only go up every year. At the bottom of this page is a list of health conditions as a result of alcohol consumption...pretty long list.

Even if we were to separate those deaths that may've been related to prostitution...the number is lessened.

Now I'm only talking deaths here...what about non-death related injuries, fights, spousal abuse, property damage, delinquency, vandalism,...the list goes on and on.

You are missing the point... Of course drinking large amounts of alcohol is bad... Everyone knows that. Small amounts have shown to be ok and often can reduce stress. Again, in the Bible, people often drank alcohol for medicinal purposes.

Are all guns bad? After all people use them to kill others... Maybe we should completely stop the sale of guns too.

BavarianWheels wrote:Prostitution is condemned by God...no argument there...of course that is not the basis of the argument...and oddly enough, I agree with you.

You say everyone is affected by law...yet I've not been affected by the law against prostitution yet...hmm. In fact I would dare say that 100% of my immediate family has not been affected by this law. If you'd like, I could start my own poll in my neighborhood and among my friends and come back with some data on your claim. The question will be, "Have you been directly affected by laws against prostitution?"

Again you are missing the point.. When someone sins, whatever it may be, people get affected. Then families get affected, neighborhoods then get affected, cities get affected, then the country gets affected. It's a cancer that starts from the roots then grows up to the tree branches and eventually kills it.

BavarianWheels wrote:I've given only two links...and only within the CDC. There are many more to comb through. Your "10 reasons"...are simply a rant against prostitution. No real data. Percentages on how many men will or will not wear condoms. Percentages of men that will use condoms for felatio...all very interesting data, but no bearing on the topic here.

Why not? You are saying that the affects of alcohol on society are actually higher than that of prostitution. You don't like the counter information to that?

BavarianWheels wrote:Human trafficking? What a joke (as it relates to our topic). Prostitution is but ONE of the reasons for human trafficking...not THE reason for human trafficking. Maybe you should read your own links...

Maybe you should read the links closer too...

"Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal and common. A MAJORITY of the women working in prostitution are foreigners, and the country is fighting against human trafficking."

An article in the New York Times by Marlise Simons in February suggests that officials estimate that sexual transactions in Amsterdam account for 100 million dollars of the county's income. The red light district is also a popular tourist attraction, so the revenues that Amsterdam earns in tourism can be partly linked to brothels and the unusual appeal they bring to city. Recently however the Dutch government has noticed an increase in violence centered around this irregular industry. In the same New York Times article the Dutch government blamed this increase in crime on the illegal immigration of individuals into Amsterdam to participate in the sex industry. Officials estimate that there are 142 brothels in the historical district with 500 window displays. Seventy-five percent of Amsterdam's 8,000-11,000 prostitutes immigrated from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000 it was to protect the women by giving them work permits but some fear that this business cannot be normalized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostituti ... etherlands

BavarianWheels wrote:Still silent on the "honest politician" thing so you sling mud...very nice for your position...
If you want to start slinging mud around, Gman...I'm sure I can accomodate you, but I value my stay here at E4GFS.
.
.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic, but the argument is invalid. So in your opinion all politicians are corrupt? So then why do we have them? Maybe we should abolish all types of authority then. All humans are corrupt too? After all politicians are humans. Maybe we should take them out too..

Bavarian Wheels,

1. I don't appreciate your comments and the slander and libel you've stated in your previous comments toward me.

2. I don't appreciate your assuming things and then stating that I violated in conscience or action my position as a pastor.

3. Your facts are incorrect.

4. The denomination I served with doesn't have a doctrine against or a prohibition against alcohol.

5. The denomination I served with has a policy for pastors that requires a pledge not to use alcohol which I agreed with and honored while I served.

6. I stated when ordained with that denomination that I didn't agree with the policy and believed it was not a scriptural position but would honor it as a matter of personal integrity. The denominational officials who ordained me, acknowledged that disagreement and stated that many pastors disagreed with it. It was not a matter of doctrine. It was a matter of policy under the assumption that leaders should be willing to be held to a higher standard.

7. This is not the first time that you have engaged in this type of tactic on the threads on this board. When you are not accomplishing what you wish, you appear to believe that it is fair game to attack the person with whom you disagree rather than the issue. That is known as an "ad hominem" attack and it is a violation of the discussion guidelines of this board.

8. You have done it publicly and so I am addressing this to you publicly in the same forum the offense took place.

9. This is the either the last time, or the second to last time that you will engage in this sort of behavior on this board. Either you will cease on your own or the next time you do it to anyone on this board, including me, you will lose posting privileges.

10. If you have any issues or questions please feel free to PM me.

Thank you,

Bart

This post is now locked until further notice....