There is no sin in that; the only sin that the scripture mentions is of Cham.
Genesis is clear that not only was he drunk, but he passed out and lay naked in his tent, for anyone to see who entered. The scripture describes this type of ABUSE of alcohol as sinful. While I am a Southern Baptist, I do not happen to be a teetotaler. If ANY use of alcohol was sinful, then Christ's first miracle would make no sense to me. (By definition, Christ would have been tempting.) However, alcohol abuse I do believe is spoken of in scripture:
Prov 23:29-35 : 29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? 30 Those who linger over wine,who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. 31 Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! 32 In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. 33 Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things. 34 You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging. 35 "They hit me," you will say, "but I'm not hurt!They beat me, but I don't feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?"
It sounds like this describes Noah to a "T". Now, is this sinful? :
Gal 5:19-21 : 19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Noah sinned.
FK: "I doubt you are making a case that Mary's lifelong sinless club is joined by all the people you mention above. :) Or are you?"
I think that it would be reasonable to conclude that all who are described as perfect in the scripture were in fact perfect, or else the scripture would not describe them so. The Church does not hold any such belief dogmatically (the belief in the sinlessness of Mary is dogmatic), but in the realm of scriptural analysis, we would have to conclude that indeed Noah, John the Forerunner, and perhaps some others were indeed sinless.
By this standard Job would probably have to be included on the list. In any event, why are not these people venerated as a special class? I would think that they would, along with Mary, also be "ultimate" examples. My guess might be that you would give some special attention to John the Forerunner, but I am unaware of any to Noah or Job.
Just before Jesus pays John the famous compliment, we have what could arguably be described as a sin by John:
Matt 11:2-3 : 2 When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
John had ABSOLUTELY no excuse for asking this question, based on what he had already seen with his own eyes. He had the benefit of prophecy, a familial relationship with Jesus, and was an eyewitness to at least one miracle involving Him. How could this not be sin? Even as Jesus learned of this sin, He nonetheless praises John. Jesus knew that ALL men are sinners, including John the Forerunner, and all the others, but that among all those sinners, none was greater than John.
[The centurion] and Mary are the exact opposite in terms of how close they are to Christ, hence the comparison was not made to Mary but to others equally unfamiliar with Him.
And I'M the one who "speculates beyond scripture"? :) Jesus says: "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." There is nothing in this simple statement to imply that He was making a comparison to only those Jews unfamiliar with Him. He could have made that distinction with three extra words: "such as you", or the like. He didn't. The statement was truly profound because Jesus elevated the faith of the centurion above that of the Jews who HAD seen Him and known of Him. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed.
FK: "This presumes that Mary could have somehow stopped the Incarnation as God had planned it."
God foresaw her response as He foresees all that He predestines, but on the other hand, God would not want to rape anyone, so yes, we have to conclude that she could have stopped the Incarnation if we believe in the goodness of God.
Mary was a virgin of faith, and from a suitable lineage. That made her scripturally qualified for her role, but certainly she was not the ONLY one so qualified. If a major source of your veneration of her is her glorious decision to obey God, (many would have done so), then how can you know if she was even God's first choice? I mean, if the fate of mankind depended on a human decision, and God used His foreknowledge, then Mary could have been His 30th choice for all we know. She was just the first one whom He knew would say "Yes". In fact, if everything hinged on a human decision, then it is LIKELY that Mary was not a first choice. This would make Mary something much less than I think she is.
Now, again assuming that it was a human decision which determined our fate, another possible view is that God only considered those whom He knew would say "yes". Even if true, it still makes the choice of Mary arbitrary, since many would have said "yes". It still lessens Mary, and makes her less than worthy of special veneration.
I see an inherent problem in the Catholic view. On the one hand you want to honor and venerate Mary above all other humans who ever lived (outside Jesus) for her independent decision to obey the command of God. On the other hand, you say that it was God who gave her special grace from the beginning, thus ensuring that decision. That doesn't square. Didn't God's foreknowledge of her "yes" include His giving of the special grace? That would take the decision out of Mary's hands and ruin everything. :)
Surprisingly or not, I agree with most of your post, FK. The OT righteous were not sinless. Take David, for example. However, they are righteous in the eyes of God. We know that Job sinned, yet the Bible calls him "perfect" (KJ, Hebrew OT), "blamless" (NAB, LXX).
In other words, humans are never perfect even if they don't sin overtly, their nature tends towards sin. Even a thought can be a sin. So, it is really difficult to imagine that Mary, from her earliest days as a young girl, old enough to know right from wrong, never even thought something, even for a fleeting moment, that would qualify as sin.
It is not as difficult to imagine that she, filled with God's grace, lost any "apetite" for sin at the moment of Annunication and, realizing her role, remained passionless for the rest of her life.
But the Apostolic Catholic and Orthodox Church simpy, says that she is purer than angels, that she never sinned. I think it is an assertion based on the fact that anything that was not pure in its totality could not be a suitable vessel.
At any rate, she is not a "goddess," no Catholic or Orthodox would ever call her "divine." Mary cannot be considered in isolation, but can only be considered in context of Christology and ecclesiology.
I believe the Protestants have no problem with Mary except with what they perceive as "idolatry." I assure you, it's not idolatry. I don't understand what is it about Mary that drives Protestants crazy.
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. If you look at the law given the Jews and later us Christians, then you may interpret his behavior as sinful. But if you look at the law given him, that is, law prior to Moses, you will not have a basis to declare his drunken behavior sinful, and the inspired author of the Bible does not describe it as sinful:
20 And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard. 21 And drinking of the wine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent. 22 Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father's nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without. 23 But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward, covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noe awaking from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him, 25 He said: Cursed be Chanaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, be Chanaan his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem, and Chanaan be his servant.
He works; he drinks; he becomes drunk and falls asleep in his tent; his clothes become undone. He is not described as seeking to get drunk or seeking to disrobe himself in public; historically, wine was not drunk for recreation as we do it, but because it was often the only way to hydrate your body in the field. All the emphasis is on the behavior of the sons; Noah's actions are described as completely natural, and this is all you get from the text. It is, of course, possible to theorize that he sinned, and that his exceptional righteousness is somehow not thorough enough to cover every little detail (as Kosta does following your post), but it is still a theory and not plain reading.
John had ABSOLUTELY no excuse
Again, this is a theory, and I am interested in what the scripture has to say. It does not describe the question as sinful, and logically, it does not have to be.
Jesus elevated the faith of the centurion above that of the Jews who HAD seen Him and known of Him
That He did, at the expense of the Jews who we not equally quick to believe in Him without signs and miracles. Mary is not in that circle of comparision. The text says: "such great faith": not any faith but such faith that comes with zero prior knowledge.
She was just the first one whom He knew would say "Yes".
Yes, that is a possibility. The patristic teaching as I know it was that Mary was the first capable of saying "yes" and meaning it. If mankind were ready for Christ a second sooner, He would have come a second sooner. But this is precisely why we venerate Mary so much.
Didn't God's foreknowledge of her "yes" include His giving of the special grace? That would take the decision out of Mary's hands and ruin everything.
No it doesn't, -- God gives all of us grace, but the decision to accept it is ours, as it was Mary's.