Posted on 12/10/2012 9:27:44 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
I believe in life after death. And although my reasons for hoping for eternity in Heaven are complex; you can boil it down to a simple concept:
Live a Godly and pure life and go to Heaven. But then if you die and there is no Heaven... You still lived a good life.
Live a sinful and evil life and go to Hell after you die. For eternity. But - if there is no life after death - you get (as it were) a get out of jail feee card, and you don’t go to Hell.
But you still lived a sinful and evil life. And every person who ever lived knows the here and now benefits of living a good life is far better than living a miserable life.
Live for God. What have you got to lose?
“If a rock music song glorifies homosexuality, is that song itself wrong to listen to?”
If a bluegrass song glorifies homosexuality, it is wrong to listen to bluegrass music?
The reason I’m using bluegrass as an example, is that it has many of the musical aspects that caused pastors to denounce rock & roll music.
It is based on African rhythmic patterns.
Both the fiddle and banjo were denounced from the pulpit in the past as being instruments of the devil.
Bluegrass lyrics (like its country cousin) often deal with the seedier side of life—adultery & violence are common song themes.
Bluegrass has been called the jazz of country music, but it’s also accurate to call it the punk rock of country music. Consequently bluegrass attracts people who are outside the mainstream.
Well, first there is no such thing as non-Bible based Christianity.
When Christ had the “first communion”, He and the disciples where eating a meal together, so I guess it wasn’t that big a deal to have food in the stomach.
Jesus neither drank nor created fermented wine.
There are many places that indicate that it is not wrong to drink wine as long as it does not become drunkenness.
Denominations change ‘their’ rules/law because they can. It’s theirs and they have nothing to do about God.
God’s Word never changes! Jesus, The Word, didn’t come for the ‘religious’/denominations or did He start one either. Those who believe on HIM - believe ONLY in His Word. There are no man-made teachings in God’s Body of Believers - His church.
I don't drink alcohol at all, because I can't stand the taste. I defend the use of alcohol if drunkenness does not result. And I am a Christian who believes that Jesus is Lord. The argument of unfurmented wine is just silly.
1 Thess 4:1-8 draws a line in the sand. It COMMANDS against sexual immorality and concludes by saying that those who reject this command have REJECTED God. Churches who allow for sexual immorality have rejected God.
“There are two kinds of ‘wine’ in the Bible. Fermented and unfermented. Unfermented “wine” or grape juice is “Holy” or “clean” while fermented wine is “unholy” and “unclean.” All alcoholic beverages are unholy and unclean!”
No, there is not two kinds of wine in the Bible.
I was in your camp, but when I pushed hard for the evidence for this, nobody could show it to me.
On the other hand, evidence that believers drank alcoholic wine is scattered throughout both the old and new testament.
For example, Paul (in a letter) chastises some believers for getting drunk on the wine from the Lord’s Supper. Yet, he doesn’t chastise them for serving alcoholic wine at the Lord’s supper to begin with, just for drinking too much.
“They do not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, they believe it needs to be updated for “modern culture”.”
This is just like the libs who say the Constitution isn’t infallible, that it has to be updated and by gosh, it’s a living, breathing document that has to fit modern times.
I believe that’s very good advice.
I have yet to know an alcohol defending Christian who doesn’t get intoxicated.
> Perhaps... but ‘won’ what?
Agreed. But still....
But the churches that are moving toward accepting homosexuality as normal, and approving gay marriage, are definitely in conflict with the Bible. THAT is the difference.
...in conflict with the Bible.
Aren't both sides of the above coin preaching doctrine that is in conflict with the Bible?
How might this affect a non-believer--who wants to follow the Bible's teachings--only to find what the Bible teaches isn't what he is being taught?
Adding or subtracting from the Bible--even for the best of causes--is never good.
How do you feel about Prozac? or Xanax? Are those sinful too?
I always figured anti-depressants and anti-anxiety meds were for people who didn't drink.
signed, a Catholic who likes his drink.
God’s Word never changes! Jesus, The Word, didn’t come for the ‘religious’/denominations or did He start one either.
AMEN!
I agree, but the point is that was used to be holy and sacred for centuries now became just old-fashioned and not in effect.
Please include in any response all of the lyrics that you find so offensive and the exact, undeniable scripture that states that ALL wine consumption is sin.
But there was a solid reason throughout most of history: alcoholic beverages were sterile.
Google "mayflower pilgrims beer". You'll find that the fist thing the pilgrims did upon landing was to start brewing alcoholic beverages. Not because they wanted to get drunk, but because it was the only way the could make sure their water supply wouldn't make them sick.
Drinking low alcohol volume beverages (including adding some wine to water to make it safe to drink) has been a common practice throughout most of history (especially in crowded settlements which made obtaining clean water difficult).
And, this is why drinking wine was not totally banned in the Bible.
If you want to argue about today--fine. But, you can't take today's situation and apply it to all of history.
Pretzilian Theology at its best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.