1 Cor 8: A misunderstood, hand grenade text

[jimmudcatgrant]

One thing R2D2 nor FSSL can not dispute is the following:

Romans 14:21 (HCSB)
21 It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

I may not be in top form, but I know a farce when I see it.  FSSL and later R2D2 used meat to attack me because I nailed the alcohol thing.  There are many people in this country that are offended by alcohol usage.  They have had loved ones killed and maimed by drunk drivers, some of the offenders being professed Chrisitans.  They have seen homes ravaged with kids doing without because of alcohol abuse.  They have seen women beaten and abused because of it.  More people have been killed by drunk drivers in this country than by all the wars put together that the U.S. has been involved in.  Countless lives have been ruined.  So, yes, the above scripture plainly applies to those offended, not just to some wine used in some temple somewhere in antiquity.  The free birds brag about how they can control themself and everyone else is weak, but they forget about the teen, his or her first time drinking, going out and ruining their life or someone elses.  I know multiple families that have been affected by some family member and alcohol abuse.  And you two dare to compare this to eating meat?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.  You are acting like a couple of know it all children.  I have never had anyone tell me that eating meat offended them.  Never.  But if a Christian brother or sister told me that it did, I would honor that if I ate with them.  But don't give me some stupid example of not going into a convenience store.  That is about as idiotic as it gets.

You don't have to agree with me.  We shall see some day who was right.  But I won't violate my convictions.  And they come from God and my study of the scriptures, not some IFBXer church or pastor, I can guarantee you that.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

2009 National Statistics
■33,808 people were killed in traffic accidents. 10,839 of these deaths was a result of alcohol (32% of all traffic deaths)
■An additional 254,000 suffered injuries due to an alcohol related accident
■Drunk drivers kill someone approximately every 48 minutes
■High BAC drivers (.15% and higher) account for more then half of all deaths in alcohol related accidents
■181 children age 14 and younger died in alcohol related accidents in 2009. Over half (92) were riding WITH THE ALCOHOL IMPAIRED DRIVER!
■In 2009 1.4 million people were arrested for driving under the influence. This is less than 1% of the amount self reported by adults. (147 million self reported episodes of drunk driving)
■Among motorcyclist killed in fatal crashes in 2009, 29% had a BAC of over 0.08%
■An average drunk driver will drive drunk 87 times before being pulled over!
■Drunk driving costs each adult in this country around $500 a year
■1 in 3 people will be involved in an alcohol related crash in their liftetime
■Among drivers killed in fatal crashes, 30% have BACs of 0.08% or greater.
■ Among drivers involved in fatal crashes, those with BAC levels of 0.08% or higher were eight times more likely to have a prior conviction for DWI than were drivers who had not consumed alcohol.
■75 percent of drunk drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive.
■Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes.
■In 2001, more than half a million people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present

 

[OZZY]

2009 National Statistics
■33,808 people were killed in traffic accidents. 10,839 of these deaths was a result of alcohol (32% of all traffic deaths)
■An additional 254,000 suffered injuries due to an alcohol related accident
■Drunk drivers kill someone approximately every 48 minutes
■High BAC drivers (.15% and higher) account for more then half of all deaths in alcohol related accidents
■181 children age 14 and younger died in alcohol related accidents in 2009. Over half (92) were riding WITH THE ALCOHOL IMPAIRED DRIVER!
■In 2009 1.4 million people were arrested for driving under the influence. This is less than 1% of the amount self reported by adults. (147 million self reported episodes of drunk driving)
■Among motorcyclist killed in fatal crashes in 2009, 29% had a BAC of over 0.08%
■An average drunk driver will drive drunk 87 times before being pulled over!
■Drunk driving costs each adult in this country around $500 a year
■1 in 3 people will be involved in an alcohol related crash in their liftetime
■Among drivers killed in fatal crashes, 30% have BACs of 0.08% or greater.
■ Among drivers involved in fatal crashes, those with BAC levels of 0.08% or higher were eight times more likely to have a prior conviction for DWI than were drivers who had not consumed alcohol.
■75 percent of drunk drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive.
■Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost the public an estimated $114.3 billion in 2000, including $51.1 billion in monetary costs and an estimated $63.2 billion in quality of life losses. People other than the drinking driver paid $71.6 billion of the alcohol-related crash bill, which is 63 percent of the total cost of these crashes.
■In 2001, more than half a million people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present

 

[rsc2a]

One thing R2D2 nor FSSL can not dispute is the following:

Romans 14:21 (HCSB)
21 It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

I may not be in top form, but I know a farce when I see it.  FSSL and later R2D2 used meat to attack me because I nailed the alcohol thing.  There are many people in this country that are offended by alcohol usage.  They have had loved ones killed and maimed by drunk drivers, some of the offenders being professed Chrisitans.  They have seen homes ravaged with kids doing without because of alcohol abuse.  They have seen women beaten and abused because of it.  More people have been killed by drunk drivers in this country than by all the wars put together that the U.S. has been involved in.  Countless lives have been ruined.  So, yes, the above scripture plainly applies to those offended, not just to some wine used in some temple somewhere in antiquity.  The free birds brag about how they can control themself and everyone else is weak, but they forget about the teen, his or her first time drinking, going out and ruining their life or someone elses. I know multiple families that have been affected by some family member and alcohol abuse.  And you two dare to compare this to eating meat?  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.  You are acting like a couple of know it all children.  I have never had anyone tell me that eating meat offended them.  Never.  But if a Christian brother or sister told me that it did, I would honor that if I ate with them.  But don't give me some stupid example of not going into a convenience store.  That is about as idiotic as it gets.

You don't have to agree with me.  We shall see some day who was right.  But I won't violate my convictions.  And they come from God and my study of the scriptures, not some IFBXer church or pastor, I can guarantee you that.

And I have buried a 16-yr old brother who burned to death with his best friend after being rear-ended by a drunk driver.....and I still say you are full of it.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Agreed on the not eat meat in front of him.  Should have said it better.  So the bible says meat is okay, but you put your opinion over the bible, even questioning someone's Christianity if they do eat meat.  Nice.  Should we expect a new book with all your heretical theological ideas?

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read:

"You shouldn't consider meat to be a legitimate option for Christians for fear of "offending a weaker brother". You also shouldn't go into a store that sells meat because someone might see you and think you are going in there to buy meat and get offended by that. And, even though the Bible has clear things to say about those who would say you can't eat meat and even gives examples where eating meat is a good thing, you should ignore all that so you don't offend these people."

So if the above is true, then no one should go in a convenience store that store that sells beer.  Are you TGL?

People that argue with themselves are strange creatures...

There is a big difference between going into a store that sells meat and serving meat to a vegan weaker brother.  That is taking things to an unrealistic level.  I don't believe it is wrong to go into a store or restaurant that sells meat or alcohol.  That is simply ludicrous, and you suggested that, not I.  Your example is foolish.  You didn't answer my other question:  Are you TGL?  The convenience store thing was his idea.  Nice putting yourself in his camp.
[/quote]

I guess you missed it...

Agreed on the not eat meat drink alcohol in front of him.  Should have said it better.  So the bible says meat alcohol is okay, but you put your opinion over the bible, even questioning someone's Christianity if they do eat meat drink alcohol.  Nice.  Should we expect a new book with all your heretical theological ideas?

...see it yet?

 

[rsc2a]

One thing R2D2 nor FSSL can not dispute is the following:

Romans 14:21 (HCSB)
21 It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

I may not be in top form, but I know a farce when I see it.  FSSL and later R2D2 used meat to attack me because I nailed the alcohol thing...

Tell me where either one of us has said we should tip our glasses with our alcoholic brothers? I'll be waiting....

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]Agreed on the not eat meat in front of him.  Should have said it better.  So the bible says meat is okay, but you put your opinion over the bible, even questioning someone's Christianity if they do eat meat.  Nice.  Should we expect a new book with all your heretical theological ideas?

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read:

"You shouldn't consider meat to be a legitimate option for Christians for fear of "offending a weaker brother". You also shouldn't go into a store that sells meat because someone might see you and think you are going in there to buy meat and get offended by that. And, even though the Bible has clear things to say about those who would say you can't eat meat and even gives examples where eating meat is a good thing, you should ignore all that so you don't offend these people."

So if the above is true, then no one should go in a convenience store that store that sells beer.  Are you TGL?

People that argue with themselves are strange creatures...

There is a big difference between going into a store that sells meat and serving meat to a vegan weaker brother.  That is taking things to an unrealistic level.  I don't believe it is wrong to go into a store or restaurant that sells meat or alcohol.  That is simply ludicrous, and you suggested that, not I.  Your example is foolish.  You didn't answer my other question:  Are you TGL?  The convenience store thing was his idea.  Nice putting yourself in his camp.

I guess you missed it...

Agreed on the not eat meat drink alcohol in front of him.  Should have said it better.  So the bible says meat alcohol is okay, but you put your opinion over the bible, even questioning someone's Christianity if they do eat meat drink alcohol.  Nice.  Should we expect a new book with all your heretical theological ideas?

...see it yet?
[/quote]

No, I don't see where I said going into a convenience store with meat or alcohol is wrong.  Be plain.  Sometimes you are intentionally vague and I can't tell where you are coming from.  I am going thru some health problems now and am not at my best, but I usually understand what you are trying to say.  If you mean that I am condeming people for drinking alcohol though the bible says it is alright, I am not.  I am merely saying not to flaunt it and harm the weaker brother, and that if one has a conviction not to drink alcohol, then it is a sin to him if he does.  I never said all alcohol usage was sin.  If you took that from my posts, I apologize.  I don't mean to say that I am more spiritual than you because I don't drink and you do drink alcohol.  I am merely saying it isn't as cut and dried as the free birds try and make it.  There is no use beating a dead horse.  If you have your convictions from God, then live them.  They would be wrong for me, and others, however, and that doesn't make you more spiritual because you drink alcohol.  Every person has to be convinced in his own mind.  BTW, having lost my mother when I was 6, and two brothers much to soon, you have my condolences concerning your brother.  I would not wish that on anyone.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

BTW, FSSL, I looked up snarky.  It means to be short, irritable, or testy with someone.  I guess I will have to own that.  Sometimes I hit the send button too soon.  I need to take the words of James to heart sometimes and be quick to hear, but slow to speak.  My apologies if I offended you.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]No, I don't see where I said going into a convenience store with meat or alcohol is wrong.  Be plain.  Sometimes you are intentionally vague and I can't tell where you are coming from.  I am going thru some health problems now and am not at my best, but I usually understand what you are trying to say.[/quote]

I am pointing out the generally absurdity of the "thou shalt not drink" mindset. The things I said you shouldn't do regarding meat (i.e. eat it...even in the privacy of your own home, be in stores with it, be a Christian and still eat it, etc) are claims I have frequently heard made from the tee-totaler crowd regarding alcohol. Change it from alcohol to meat, and it quickly becomes apparent how bad their arguments (and how hypocritical, one of the original points FSSL made).

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]If you mean that I am condeming people for drinking alcohol though the bible says it is alright, I am not.  I am merely saying not to flaunt it and harm the weaker brother, and that if one has a conviction not to drink alcohol, then it is a sin to him if he does.  I never said all alcohol usage was sin.  If you took that from my posts, I apologize.  I don't mean to say that I am more spiritual than you because I don't drink and you do drink alcohol.  I am merely saying it isn't as cut and dried as the free birds try and make it.  There is no use beating a dead horse.  If you have your convictions from God, then live them.  They would be wrong for me, and others, however, and that doesn't make you more spiritual because you drink alcohol.  Every person has to be convinced in his own mind. [/quote]

That is why he doesn't preach against the sin of drinking... - jimmudcatgrant

Ask the question, "Why do people drink alcohol?", and you will understand that the abuse of it is one of the biggest problems that has plagued our society for years.  More people have been killed by drunk drivers than all the wars we have been involved in, yet Christians have the audacity to say it's ok to drink. Why?  What good purpose can come of alcohol consumption for most users? I will never understand the kind of Christianity that some people have in this country.  Never. - jimmudcatgrant

There are some people that can handle alcohol.  They don't get falling down drunk, but they are never going to convince me they don't do it for the buzz....There is a stigma, like it or not, with drinking.  That can also cause shame to the name of Christ, imo. - jimmudcatgrant

It appears to me like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you are saying that it is the abuse of alcohol that is a sin and you won't judge Christians who choose to drink, and on the other hand, you are judging any Christian who would choose to do so.

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]BTW, having lost my mother when I was 6, and two brothers much to soon, you have my condolences concerning your brother.  I would not wish that on anyone.[/quote]

My thanks.

Although my point was that your argument was doubly fallacious  because it was an blatant appeal to emotion and an individual who should have been most susceptible to said appeal found the argument lacking.

 

[Ransom]

Read the above, FSSL, and tell me that we don't have a national problem.  I know, I know, you and others can handle it.  I pray you are right.  The average person drives over 80 times impaired by alcohol before ever getting pulled over for it.  No doubt countless thought they were "handling" it.

For your next trick, are you going to cite statistics on STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and call for an end to sex?

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Read the above, FSSL, and tell me that we don't have a national problem.  I know, I know, you and others can handle it.  I pray you are right.  The average person drives over 80 times impaired by alcohol before ever getting pulled over for it.  No doubt countless thought they were "handling" it.

For your next trick, are you going to cite statistics on STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and call for an end to sex?

Not a trick Ransom, but a sad reality.  The fact that you trivialize it speaks to your shame.  Furthemore, I did not call for an end to alcohol usage, just responsible limitations.  God has already put limitations on sex as well:  fornication, homosexuality, adultery, etc. So your post is moot.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

R2D2 said, "Although my point was that your argument was doubly fallacious  because it was an blatant appeal to emotion and an individual who should have been most susceptible to said appeal found the argument lacking."

As sorry as I am what happened to you, your reaction is an individual thing.  I can show you many more that experienced similar tragedies yet react differently.  Your reaction does not invalidate their reaction, nor my point about what the word of God says.  It plainly says not to drink alcohol if it causes your brother to stumble or be offended.  You can use all the examples and attacks against me that you like, but you won't change God's word.  My mispeaks do not invalidate God's word either.  It is easy to attack the messenger when you don't like the message.  Let's forget my mispeaks and I will lay my thinking about what God's word says one more time:

1)  Drinking alcohol is not inherently evil. I know my ramblings seemed to say that I thought all usage is a sin, but I do not.  When I wrote about a preacher not preaching against the sin of drinking, I should have qualified it right there with that it is a sin for some people, but not all.  I did qualify it later on in other posts, but that didn't matter to you, you keep pounding where I said it without the qualification.  Your first attack was fair, the subsequent ones are not.  I am making it plain right here once again.  It is a sin for someone to violate his own conscience, such as my myself, and drink alcohol.  That is undeniable and supported by the scriptures I gave.  It is a sin to offend someone with your use of alcohol.  That is a lot harder to nail down, but that doesn't make it any less true.  Christians like myself, though I don't drink, would not be offended if I came to your house and you served cocktails or wine for supper, or went and enjoyed a cigar (surprise, I don't smoke either  ) and brandy after supper.  I would merely abstain.  I am saying that some people might be offended, or it could cause them to stumble.  I am sure this is nowhere near the majority, but the responsiblity is on you, not the offended. Let me state clearly one more time that I don't think I am more spiritual for not drinking.  I am merely more aware of how it can offend.

2)  Drinking alcohol is a sin when one gets drunk. That is indisputable from the scriptures as well.  I know you believe that from your testimony, so I am not accusing you in that regard.  Let me park here just for a minute, as it's not quite that simple. What is your definition of drunk?  The law describes it as .08 in a lot of states.  Do you know how many drinks it takes to get there?  It is usually an individual thing.  I suspect a lot of people get there without  truly realizing it.  If you can't drive at .08 because of impairment, then should you do other things in that condition?  Those are hard questions and are individual in nature, I will admit.  Some people can function at a high level at .08, I am quite sure.  But I don't make the laws. I am a big man, 6' 3", over 200 pounds, so I know a couple of beers that might make a 100 pound lady tipsy wouldn't faze me.  The scripture says not to get drunk, and each person has check themself in this regard.

3) It is interesting to me that no one can show me where I have misapplied the scriptures, yet you continue to attack my message.  Show me where I am wrong from the scriptures.  FSSL tried to, but other scriptures backed me up, not him.

4) This will probably be my last post on this particular subject in this thread as I think we have covered it enough, so I will give you the last word, if you care to take it. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=jimmudcatgrant]4) This will probably be my last post on this particular subject in this thread as I think we have covered it enough, so I will give you the last word, if you care to take it. [/quote]

It's yours. 

 

[FSSL]

Jimmud.... please give us a sampling of your exegetical work on 1 Corinthians 8 below:

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Jimmud.... please give us a sampling of your exegetical work on 1 Corinthians 8 below:

I pass. Refer to my last post.  I notice you never tried to exegete my other scripture reference.  If you want me to say you are smarter than me, that is entirely possible.  If you want me to say I am wrong in the understanding of the scriptures, I will not.  Only God will change my mind.  As I said before, even if I Cor. 8 doesn't bear me out, the other scripture does.  If you want to email me with your entire exegesis, I will be glad to look at it and comment that way.   

 

[FSSL]

You pass because you have no exegesis. It is not a good thing to debate from googled statistics and abiblical assumptions.

 

[Ransom]

Not a trick Ransom, but a sad reality.  The fact that you trivialize it speaks to your shame.

No trivializing at all, just a relevant analogy. The abuse of a thing does not negate the legitimate use of it. 

Otherwise, we're going to have to listen to those gay "marriage" advocates who point out the high divorce rate amongst heterosexuals and ask whether the institution of marriage is worth saving in the tradiitonal state, and tell them, "Well, I guess you have a point."

Furthemore, I did not call for an end to alcohol usage, just responsible limitations.

And what are you calling a "responsible limitation"? Virtually all your statistics were related to drunk driving, which is already "responsibily limited" - i.e., it's illegal.

 

[Anchor]

Some food for thought in this discussion:
1) I Cor. 8 is only a relatively small part of the greater context which begins in I Cor. 6 and continues through I Cor. 10.  The conclusions you make of I Cor. 8 must be consistent with the conclusions of the entire context which, in a nutshell, is don't eat the meat offered to idols and don't sit at meat in the idol temple.  Of course there are nuances of import.
2) Rom. 14 is referencing a matter of meat entirely unrelated to meat offered to idols (Acts 10 mandate) and really has very little in common with I Cor. 8-10.  Rom. 14 deals entirely with objects (meat, days, etc.) while I Cor. 8-10 deals with both objects (meat offered to idols) and actions (sit at meat in the idol temple).
3) I Cor. 8-10 shows how objects and actions can be morally tainted by the pervading idolatry of the culture, and that that moral taint is just as real as if it had been declared immoral ("unclean") as it was under OT law.
4) Rom. 14 discusses those things that have had a moral change of status from moral/immoral (unclean meats; holy days) to neutral (neither commanded nor forbidden). 

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

You pass because you have no exegesis. It is not a good thing to debate from googled statistics and abiblical assumptions.

You have a right to your own opinions.  But my opinions didn't come from assumptions or google.  Don't pretend you know anything about me.  You do not.  You think your opinons come from deeper exegesis and are therefore superior.  To that extent, I will exegete one verse:

1 Corinthians 8:12 (NLT)
12 And when you sin against other believers by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ.

You choose to think the above is limited only to the context of the chapter, food offered to idols.  I do not, and used other scritpure to expound why.  My exegesis of the passages doesn't differ that greatly from yours. The above verse, however, takes it from the specific to the general by the usage of the word "something".  If the scripture were talking about only meat offered to idols, then why wasn't if specific.  Therefore I don't believe the application is limited to meat offered to idols. It's the application that is in question here.  Meat offered to idols was the problem there.  You think that is the only application that can be made.  I do not. I am saying that two people can take scriptures and apply them as God leads.  I know that is a slippery slope, so that is why I continued to seek other scriptures to see if my application would hold up.  It did.  So don't dismiss me as a shallow believer, because I will guarantee you my beliefs come from study, not google.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

Not a trick Ransom, but a sad reality.  The fact that you trivialize it speaks to your shame.

No trivializing at all, just a relevant analogy. The abuse of a thing does not negate the legitimate use of it. 

Otherwise, we're going to have to listen to those gay "marriage" advocates who point out the high divorce rate amongst heterosexuals and ask whether the institution of marriage is worth saving in the tradiitonal state, and tell them, "Well, I guess you have a point."

Furthemore, I did not call for an end to alcohol usage, just responsible limitations.

And what are you calling a "responsible limitation"? Virtually all your statistics were related to drunk driving, which is already "responsibily limited" - i.e., it's illegal.

I agree, it is already illegal.  My point was that how many of those offenders started out thinking they could "handle it."  My point was also to show why alcohol usage offends some people.  I thought I expressed that.