Drinking, Cheeseburgers, and Marijuana?

I appreciate the position Mike and Kevin are taking. Jim wrote:

Firstly I was surprised that Mike took this position: “… the Bible, in his opinion, does not explicitly prohibit the use of beverage alcohol”

The Apostle Paul was clear that just because things were lawful does not mean they are expedient. I believe much credibility is gained when respected men like Mike and Kevin are honest about what the scripture says about alcohol, but still show why a Christian is wise to avoid it. My brother-in law and I were talking about this last week and while we agreed that the Bible does not actually prohibit the consumption of alcohol, we recognized that the risks of consuming it far outweigh any benefits that may be there (we have refrigeration and pure water where we live). BTW we both abstain. I did not hear the Harding/Smith debate, but Kevin’s article is a great reminder of the risks of alcohol (something technically lawful) that show why it is not expedient for me to drink it.

If you want to go back and listen to the debate, you can find it here:

http://www.moodyradio.org/brd_ProgramDetail.aspx?id=126522

– Mod note –—

Or use the link previously published 2 or 3 posts before :)

Straub and Harding agree that the Bible does not prohibit drinking alcohol, but that all Christians should abstain for the sake of their witness. Straub, at least, believes alcohol and marijuana consumption are equivalent. Therefore, Straub believes the Bible does not prohibit smoking marijuana, but that all Christians should abstain for the sake of their witness?

Also, if Jim’s “View A” is the view that the Bible does prohibit drinking alcohol so that no Christian should drink, and “View B” is that it is a liberty issue so that some Christians may drink, are Straub and Harding “View A1”?

(In case it matters, I’m “View B” based on family history similar to Straub’s.)

[dmyers]

Straub, at least, believes alcohol and marijuana consumption are equivalent. Therefore, Straub believes the Bible does not prohibit smoking marijuana, but that all Christians should abstain for the sake of their witness?

Perhaps it would be good to reread Straub’s view. He does not say he thinks they are the same, only that some of his family does (lost members who do not read SI). It is true that the Bible does not prohibit smoking marijuana as such, but I think Straub could make the case for prohibition on other grounds if this were needed.

It is both a false analogy and a red herring. Assuming Smith to be an intelligent and informed brewer, he must understand that the question posed to him was ultimately impossible to answer for the reasons I cited otherwise why not answer directly? This left him with a dilemma - admit that impossibility or insert a false analogy into the discussion to divert attention and avoid admitting the utter untenability of his larger position.

[Jeff Straub]

It is both a false analogy and a red herring. Assuming Smith to be an intelligent and informed brewer, he must understand that the question posed to him was ultimately impossible to answer for the reasons I cited otherwise why not answer directly? This left him with a dilemma - admit that impossibility or insert a false analogy into the discussion to divert attention and avoid admitting the utter untenability of his larger position.

The second issue in the debate was equally troubling. Near the end of the interaction, the moderator asked John Smith how a person would know when he has had too much to drink. In effect, when does drinking in moderation end and drinking in excess begin?

The moderator posed a question about Jesus turning water to wine, not how a person knows when they have too much to drink. As Smith discussed that concept, he inserted the cheeseburger analogy. It was not a diversion. Also, it is not blatantly false as you’re implying. The OP article did not address Smith’s point that sin is from the heart, twisting and abusing the gifts of life from God. I find it curious that one could see it as troubling. Why not address the argument on its merits?

• Heart disease is the number one killer in the world - therefore the deadly nature of overeating, gluttony and obesity is pertinent to a discussion of ingesting something into the body that can affect it negatively. Emotional references to drunk driving and bar fights notwithstanding, the effects of gluttony are more commonplace, reach further and far more deadly than alcohol.
• Sin is sin. Gluttony is sinful and drunkenness is sinful. Moderation vs. Overindulgence. That simple.
• Drinking too much or eating too much are subjective measurements. A person knows when they eat too much, and they know when they’ve drunk too much. People know when they’ve crossed a line. They know their limits.
• This “where’s the line?” argument is an a priori assumption and essentially built on a pre-conceived notion of the general evils of alcohol. It’s essentially begging the question.

I need with agree with the point of this post. I went back and listened again carefully to Smith’s comments and the cheeseburger comment which occurs about 39.50 into the discussion was directed at abuse per se and not about the precise point at which moderation ends and abuse begins. That point was actually raised about 50.25. At that point Smith begin to talk about gluttony which he had earlier connected with too many cheeseburgers. Julie asked “when is someone drunk by Eph 5 standards?” Smith’s answer, “I will answer your question with a question. When does someone commit gluttony?” While I conflated the two comments like this

• Too many cheeseburgers equals gluttony, gluttony is a Sin
• drinking in excess is like eating too many cheeseburgers
• How does one know when they have drunk too much? The same way they know they have eaten too much (too many cheeseburgers)

Does not the point still stand? When does moderation end and abuse begin? Your suggestion that people know their own limitations is not supported by the documentary or anecdotal evidence. Ask any police officer who has stopped someone for erratic driving only to told by the individual that the individual is not drunk. Then they fail a breathalyzer.

Drinking too much or eating too much are subjective measurements. A person knows when they eat too much, and they know when they’ve drunk too much. People know when they’ve crossed a line. They know their limits.

I wonder if this is actually true. I know when I eat too much, I usually don’t know it until after I have done it when I feel the affects of it. I also know that many people who drink don’t know it until it is too late. Remember, alcohol takes a while to absorb into the system. Last summer I played golf with a guy who was telling me about his previous weekend at a golf event. He said he really embarrassed himself because of drinking, and he didn’t know it. This is a successful businessman with a lifetime history of drinking who didn’t know he had drunk too much. And as Jeff pointed out, drunk drivers are pulled over all the time who do not know they are drunk.

So the claim that a person’s condition is self-evident to them seems not to be in line with experience, at least in general. While you may know, many may not.

This “where’s the line?” argument is an a priori assumption and essentially built on a pre-conceived notion of the general evils of alcohol. It’s essentially begging the question.

What do you mean be “pre-conceived notion”? Aren’t the “evils of alcohol” both revealed in Scripture and demonstrated in society? When I think of a “pre-conceived notion,” I think of something someone believes without evidence, and in the face of evidence. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. The “evidence” of the general evils of alcohol is borne out both by revelation and experience. So we should question why pre-conceived notions of this type are bad?

[Jeff Straub]

dmyers wrote:

Straub, at least, believes alcohol and marijuana consumption are equivalent. Therefore, Straub believes the Bible does not prohibit smoking marijuana, but that all Christians should abstain for the sake of their witness?

Perhaps it would be good to reread Straub’s view. He does not say he thinks they are the same, only that some of his family does (lost members who do not read SI). It is true that the Bible does not prohibit smoking marijuana as such, but I think Straub could make the case for prohibition on other grounds if this were needed.

Although Jeff does not say smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol are the same, I also got the impression that there is a strong equivalence from the paragraphs below. Jeff does feel the comparison is warranted. And since President Obama is quoted approvingly and has commented “that there really is no difference” doesn’t that seem to indicate that they are at least nearly the same?

The quandary and double standard for moderate drinkers exists more in the minds of prohibitionists than for drinking Christians. I would venture that most moderate drinkers, especially if they have ever smoked marijuana, know that there are huge differences between the two. This doesn’t mean they can’t be compared. In comparing them you see the differences. There is only one reason to toke a blunt and that’s to get high. Yes, I speak from experience (but not recently, really). Of course, that is the intention of many who drink as well. But even Jeff and Mike appear to admit that the Bible doesn’t require abstinence. You smoke weed to get high and it is almost immediate. That is not the case for those who drink in moderation, pairing wine with certain foods, etc. The sooner abstinence only advocates drop the marijuana comparison the sooner they will be taken more seriously. If we are arguing that both are gifts from God then let’s throw God’s gift of opium poppies into the mix or anything else He created. Although God’s gifts may be used in different ways, even opiates, the Bible directly addresses the use and abuse of alcoholic beverages.

For the last three years I have worked as a certified addiction therapist in the criminal justice system with drug addicts before transferring recently to a clinic where I am continue to work with addicts. Most of them are polysubstance abusers -opiates, cocaine, weed, benzos, PCP, etc. I hear stories that would bring you to tears and see daily how abuse has brought untold tragedy and loss. I would not encourage them or anyone else to take a drink. I would not ask a Christian who abstains to partake. Christians who in wisdom choose abstinence should be commended for their position. It is a matter of liberty and of conscience. Please allow others to differ. I’m afraid that many continue to have this same debate which makes few converts and blinds us to what might be larger and more easily hidden problems in our churches with members who are addicted to prescription pain medications like, Vicodin, Percocet and Oxycondone and/or anti-anxiety and anti-depressive medications. But that’s for another time.

“There were two points of the debate that merit further reflection. The first issue had to do with comparing alcohol with marijuana. This subject was raised to John Smith and he basically deflected the comparison. Yet the comparison is warranted, especially in light of President Obama’s recent comment that there is really no difference between drinking alcohol and smoking pot. Given the prospect of legalization, I have to wonder what will keep the drinking Christians from applying their same argument to the controlled use of recreational marijuana. If alcohol is God’s good gift, why would marijuana be any different? Didn’t God create the cannabis plant? If He created them, they must be good. So why shouldn’t a Christian use God’s good gifts?

The reality is that there does not seem to be any real distinction in the mind of the world between alcohol and marijuana. I know there isn’t in the minds of my own family. This comparison will surely put drinking Christians into a quandary. Either pro-consumption Christians (Harding called them “enthusiasts”) will be forced to be consistent with their own arguments for alcohol and marijuana, or they will be compelled to argue for what amounts to a double standard—only some of God’s good gifts are acceptable to Christians.”

Larry/Jeff,

I’ll point to Jim’s responses as my basic assertion. People know their limitations. For every drunk driver (and I’ve arrested hundreds of them), there’s a thousand drinkers who didn’t get drunk. One’s choice to exceed personal physical limitations is a choice, not a lack of knowledge or awareness, i.e. we usually pig out on Thanksgiving and sit around for two days wondering why we did that…again. That’s why this boils down to wisdom, balance and moderation. I still contend that the “crossing the line” argument is a priori. It is pre-conceived to claim the Bible points to alcohol as evil. We’ve tread this ground before. My main point, which I think Jeff conceded, was that Smith’s cheeseburger/gluttony analogy is not off base inherently.

I may be on a limb on this one, but it seems like the teetotalers may not understand moderate alcohol consumption because of lack of experience. I don’t say that condescendingly. I mean if you have never consumed, or your only experience with booze was from sowing wild oats, it’s really hard to grasp how simple it is to consume a single glass of wine, or a single beer with a dinner and not be controlled by it in the least.

By the way, I’ve always supported the basic view Harding takes related to expediency, especially as it relates to personal conviction and giving no offense. It’s been mentioned before, but DA Carson doesn’t drink in the US because of the stigma. In Canada or Europe, he imbibes as a part of the culture. Makes sense. But I do not concede inherent sin or evil is attached to alcoholic beverages.

Bro. Harding does an excellent job of defending and explaining the “Abstinence” position. A worthwhile listen. Alcohol use is dangerous and not worth the risk.

BTW, the best argument for total abstinence is the caller who admitted, “I drink the hard stuff.” :-)