"Not only are more women drinking alcohol, so are more evangelicals"

… did you find the following quote?

[dgszweda]

“By drunkenness it is understood a person that either lisps or falters in his speech by reason of overmuch drink or that staggers in his going or that vomits by reason of excessive drinking, or cannot follow his calling.”

The state of Texas now has TV ads against drinking and driving. They say,
“Buzzed driving is drunk driving.”

Government recognizes many traffic accidents are caused by those who register below the legal “drunk” limit. They have enough alcohol to slow their reaction time and their judgment, but not enough to push them past the legal limit.

You don’t have to be falling down drunk to be affected by alcohol.

Jerry Vines has said, “Moderate drinking is moderate drunkenness.”

A defensive driving instructor, who admitted he socially drinks, said,
“The first thing alcohol does is affect your judgment. Therefore, if you have had any alcohol at all, you are unqualified to determine whether you can safely drive.”

There is also the old example:
Take two equally matched athletes. Have the first one drink a beer, the second no alcohol. Then have them compete. The second athlete will win every time.
David R. Brumbelow

[David R. Brumbelow]

The state of Texas now has TV ads against drinking and driving. They say,
“Buzzed driving is drunk driving.”

Government recognizes many traffic accidents are caused by those who register below the legal “drunk” limit. They have enough alcohol to slow their reaction time and their judgment, but not enough to push them past the legal limit.

You don’t have to be falling down drunk to be affected by alcohol.

Jerry Vines has said, “Moderate drinking is moderate drunkenness.”

A defensive driving instructor, who admitted he socially drinks, said,
“The first thing alcohol does is affect your judgment. Therefore, if you have had any alcohol at all, you are unqualified to determine whether you can safely drive.”

There is also the old example:
Take two equally matched athletes. Have the first one drink a beer, the second no alcohol. Then have them compete. The second athlete will win every time.
David R. Brumbelow

(I am not engaging you Mr. Brumbelow but arguing the concept)

What about anger because someone cut you off? Anger can turn into roadrage. It needs to be controlled because rage affects driving performance negatively.

Also, there is a time and place for everything, the article is not advocating irresponsible behavior. Notice the wisdom of Ecclesiastes 3:

For everything there is a season, and la time for every matter under heaven:

2 a time to be born, and a time to mdie;

a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;

3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;

a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 a time to nweep, and a time to laugh;

a time to mourn, and a time to odance;

5 a time to pcast away stones, and a time to qgather stones together;

a time to embrace, and a time to rrefrain from embracing;

6 a time to seek, and a time to slose;

a time to keep, and a time to tcast away;

7 a time to utear, and a time to sew;

a time to vkeep silence, and a time to speak;

8 a time to love, and a time to whate;

a time for war, and a time for peace.

Dave,

We have the same slogan in Michigan, “Buzzed driving is drunk driving.” Our knowledge of the effects of alcohol is greater today than it was in the puritan age. The puritan standard for drunkenness was the obvious symptoms of staggering, slurred speech, and such. What they could not measure as well entailed the mind, vision, reaction time, depth perception, judgment. Also, today people are operating complicated machinery such as cars, airplaines, compared to riding a horse back then. We have many alternatives to alcohol today that do not impair our judgment.

[KenFields]

… did you find the following quote?

dgszweda wrote:

“By drunkenness it is understood a person that either lisps or falters in his speech by reason of overmuch drink or that staggers in his going or that vomits by reason of excessive drinking, or cannot follow his calling.”

I have seen it a few places, but here is one real quick http://www.examiner.com/article/don-t-drink-the-water-puritans-and-alco…

[Mike Harding]

Dave,

We have the same slogan in Michigan, “Buzzed driving is drunk driving.” Our knowledge of the effects of alcohol is greater today than it was in the puritan age. The puritan standard for drunkenness was the obvious symptoms of staggering, slurred speech, and such. What they could not measure as well entailed the mind, vision, reaction time, depth perception, judgment. Also, today people are operating complicated machinery such as cars, airplaines, compared to riding a horse back then. We have many alternatives to alcohol today that do not impair our judgment.

There is absolutely no doubt that even one small drink begins to have an effect on someone. And again it is primarily driven by previous alcohol tolerance, and the all important mass of your body. One small drink for a 400 lb man will have significantly less of an effect than on a petite 95lb woman. I would never advocate someone to start drinking because of the Puritans. In fact, I would argue against anyone to start drinking. But I do question just saying that it affects you so you shouldn’t do something, especially when taking “uppers” in the form of coffee is okay.

To compare coffee with alcohol isn’t correct. Coffee doesn’t lower our inhibitions or numb our mind.

Several have commented on this section of the article:

Researcher Peter Green, who studies the significance of wine in Scripture, …thinks the Bible “presents alcoholic drinks as an indicator and facilitator of human and divine relationships.”

I can’t read more of Peter Green’s PhD thesis “The Theological Significance of Wine in the Pentateuch” than this abstract, but this quote makes me think he make some support of this claim here: “…this paper will argue that the use of yayin and tirosh in these five categories demonstrates that wine was a facilitator in the divine-human relationship in the Pentateuch.”

this paper will argue that the use of yayin and tirosh in these five categories demonstrates that wine was a facilitator in the divine-human relationship in the Pentateuch.

I believe this is correct - Wine was accepted as an offering to the Lord in theocratic Israel (Numbers 15:1-5).

That being said, I still disagree strongly that what was acceptable/proscribed in OT Israel’s worship practices necessarily carries through to today’s church practice. We don’t follow their laws, we aren’t bound to their dress and customs, we don’t worship at the Temple, and those laws have been done away with for us (Rom. 7:4-6). Covenant Theologians, maybe, but not this dispensationalist.

Go decaf

How I see it: 4 Major Christian Views on Alcohol Consumption

My view is NOT A or D

–––- Not a bad Wiki article: Christian views on alcohol. This quotation represents my own conviction: “Drink is in itself a good creature of God, and to be received with thankfulness, but the abuse of drink is from Satan; the wine is from God, but the drunkard is from the Devil”

I’m really a A/B Blend. Do I get a half point, like 4.5 point Calvinists? :)

• I don’t advise others not to drink - although I see it as the safest practice (to not drink) (View B: Advise others not to drink)


• For me it is a tertiary issue … not rising to the level of importance that most Fundamentalists so assign


• I basically take the old world or Colonial American view (wiki article)