Talk:Christian views on alcohol/Archive 1

message: If you have a problem with the footnote numbering after editing this article, add ?action=purge to the end of the page name in your brower address bar to fix it. (See also this discussion.) --Flex 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with footnotes?

message: I started this article to fulfill the "Alcohol, Drinking of" entry from Wikipedia:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology project, and I've made it public here in its current form in the hopes that others would contribute to it to make it better. --Flex 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to know how prohibitionists address the fact that Jesus drank wine and also that miracle he made at the wedding when he provided it. This is not intended to be a pun, just curious. --217.130.121.152
That will be addressed in time in the article, I trust. My understanding is that prohibitionists take "wine" to be non-fermented grape juice in that (and other) contexts where the text does not explicitly require alcoholic content. --Flex 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansions

message: BTW my english is far from perfect but it sounds better to me "christian views on alcohol" that the current one.
:I'd like to second this. "Of" may not be incorrect, but it does sound awkward. --MQDuck
::As a native speaker of American English, the current title sounds fine (actually a bit better than "on") to my ear. Perhaps it's British vs. American or some other cultural thing? It should be noted that both "of" and "on" are used in existing article titles such as Views of Palestinian statehood, Sunni view of Ali, Christian views on witchcraft, and Political views on the Macedonian language. I've added a redirect as per WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, and I think the title should remain as-is, though I wouldn't be heartbroken if it didn't. --Flex 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I noticed that Baptists were put under this heading.  I'm not sure it's completely accurate as the largest US Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, is a strictly dry denomination.  Many Independent Baptists are too.  Conversative Baptists do generally fall under this heading though.  American Baptists have fairly liberal theology, so I believe would fall under the moderationist.
Also, many Friends (Quakers), Old Order & Conservative Mennonites and Methodists are dry.   The Amish only drink a tiny amount of sweet wine as part of wedding celebrations.
I'll have to double check, but I believe the aforementioned Mennonite groups even have a written standard that opposes drinking. --68.116.98.179
:I'm entirely in favor of expanding coverage and making the article more accurate. Feel free to do some research and take a whack at it! --Flex 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstentionism & Some Misc. Points? 

message: Since this group had its roots in Christianity, it would be good to include some reference to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs).
:This is in the works. Thanks! --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alcoholics Anonymous]] 

message: User:GearedBull recently renamed this article from "Christian views of alcohol" to "Christian view of alcohol" because the opening sentence bolded the latter phrase. However, the article itself is concerned with describing the multiple views, which makes the former more appropriate. Re-reading WP:MOS#Article_titles, I think this page falls under the "descriptive" type of article names, so I will unbold the phrase and rename the page appropriately. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: Because Christ used wine at the last supper, the Eastern Orthodox Church requires the use of wine in the Eucharist. The Orthodox Church has no restrictions on the consumption of alcohol as long as moderation is observed and drunkenness is avoided. There are, however, numerous fixed periods during the year (a total of about 1/3 of the year) when the Church requires its members to abstain from wine, animal products, and olive oil. Most Orthodox include all hard liquor in this fast as well; beer however, is allowed.--Phiddipus 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore it may be interesting to mention the legend that when Prince Vladimir of Kiev choose his new religion he picked Christianity over Islam because he couldn't imagine Slavs adhering to a religion that forbade alcohol.  Be careful with this story, though. lest it turn into a anti-Slavic joke.  Kevlar67 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and that is a common argument used by abstentionists (but not prohibitionists) on why circumstances have changed today such that alcohol should be considered less acceptable. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, does the Orthodox church allow (or require) mixing the Eucharist wine with water? Is there anything "official" about drinking wine for pleasure? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, just before Communion, the Deacon adds boiling water (Greek: zeon) to the chalice, saying, "The fervour (zeal) of faith, full of the Holy Spirit." MishaPan 06:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drinking wine as a beverage isn't frowned upon in Eastern Orthodoxy, and perhaps even encouraged.  Some well-known Greek wine is produced and bottled by the monks of Mount Athos; since it's the most famous center of Eastern Orthodox monasticism, this is taken as a pretty high endorsement.  In addition, it's customary for a visitor to an Eastern Orthodox monastery to be given a shot of tsipouro (a homemade hard liquor) along with a loukoumi to help them recover from their journey.  For the most part, though, I think it's considered a non-religious issue.  The Church would counsel against excess alcohol use more as an issue of health and character, much as it counsels against, say, someone sitting on a couch eating potato chips all day. --Delirium 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. It's allowed in moderation, and as at least most alcohol is avoided during (most) fasting days, that's sometimes taken as a good opportunity to make sure that drinking alcohol hasn't become an addiction. Of course drunkenness is considered a sin and treated as such. Wesley 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Eastern Orthodox Church 

message: I was surprised to not find a summary of prohibition here. At the very least, see also link would be helpful, but I feel that a paragraph or two summarizing the most relevant parts of the prohibition article would be a good addition to this article. What do others thing? Is there a reason that prohibition isn't mentioned except in passing in the 1800s section.-Andrew c 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, Prohibition is rightly only mentioned in passing because the subject of this article is Christianity's relationship with alcohol, which is different and broader topic than the Prohibitionist era -- the temperance movement and Prohibition were more social movements that claimed support from Judeo-Christian heritage. Let me know if you see things differently or just take a swing at the article itself, and we'll see what we can hash out. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prohibition 

message: Many commentaries make mention that Timothy likely totally abstained from alcohol, which gave rise to Paul recommending it for medicinal purposes for his ailments (1Ti 5:23).  Perhaps this should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.17.168 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed. I'll see what I can do. (BTW, you can sign your posts automatically by putting in ~~~~.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I might be able to dig up some references regarding commentaries.  66.191.19.42 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't turn them down, especially if they came with relevant quotations. :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timothy 

message: I've been an abstentionist all my life and know very little about winemaking and fermentation. But I was of the understanding there is a distinct difference between "Old Wine" and "New Wine" in the Bible. I'd be interested in seeing some information on this distinction from those of you who know more on the subject than I.  --Andy. 209.55.80.148 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're specifically looking for, but there's some information in the article already concerning this. Just CTRL+F and search for 'dilut' and you'll find a few relevant passages about the strength and mixing of wine during the Old Testament times and the New Testament times.--C.Logan 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out Alcohol in the Bible for a fairly comprehensive discussion of the different types/stages of wine mentioned in the Bible. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Old Wine"

message: The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a pretty long history of being teetotalers .  I think they should be added, with proper sourcing, to the Abstentionism section. 71.92.157.95 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friends? 

message: We might want to include Billy Sunday in the list of abstentionists or prohibitionists.  He was rather outspoken about the topic of alcohol. 68.113.47.180 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Sunday 

message: As of August 31, 2007, this section clearly has a mis-citation:
"Cyprian (died 258) rejects as "contrary to evangelical and apostolical discipline" the practice of some Gnostics, who used water instead of wine in the Eucharist. While still rejecting drunkenness, on the content of the cup he says, "The Holy Spirit also ... makes mention of the Lord’s cup, and says, 'Thy inebriating cup, how excellent it is!' [quoting the Vulgate translation of Ps 23:5] Now the cup which inebriates is assuredly mingled with wine, for water cannot inebriate anybody."
The Vulgate translation comes from the 5th century; is the quoted section from the Vulgate, and therefore not from Cyprian, or is it from Cyprian and therefore not the Vulgate?
Lifthrasir1 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right you are. The entire quote is from Cyprian in the Schaff edition of Cyprian linked to in the footnotes. I inserted the parenthetical since that verse is rendered differently in every modern translation, which all give preference to other manuscripts. The Vulgate and Septuagint, however, give something similar to what Cyprian says. Since he was Latin, I made the incorrect leap to say that he used the Vulgate. Thanks for the catch. I have corrected the article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Church misquote 

message: Let's settle this once and for all.  If Jesus Christ had been against the common drinking of wine, his first miracle would not have been turning water into wine.  Case closed!  Baptists, middle agers, and any other anti-alcoholers are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is not a discussion forum (WP:TPG#How_to_use_article_talk_pages). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The points raised above (unlike some of those at Talk:Alcohol in the Bible) are generally directly related to a specific point of the article's content, as far as a quick scan can tell. In any case, the typical off-purpose post is by an anon who came from Google, is unaware that the WP has standards for talk pages, and departs quickly, whereas you are a member of the Wikipedia community. Besides, one wrong does not justify another. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity and Wine 

message: Is not verifiably or undebatably Protestant and therefore should not be listed as such in the Moderationism section. Therefore, I moved it to right after Eastern Orthodox. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglicanism 

message: I couldn't fit my explanation in the edit summary, so I'll put it here. I neutralized some recent edits by User:Nephate, the main thrust of which was to emphasize the word "forever" in two biblical passages and show that the restriction on kings is not explicit. Presumably Nephate is objecting by these edits to the phrasing that wine was forbidden only "at various times." The first two verses given certainly mention perpetuity, but the first just as clearly restricts the anti-drinking statute to times "when you go into the tabernacle of meeting."
The second concerning the Rechabites is nowhere considered normative for others, and if we should understand it as such, we should also be forced to become nomads as well. They vowed never to drink wine, live in houses, or plant fields or vineyards, not because of any "threat to wise living" from these practices, but because of their commitment to a nomadic lifestyle by not being bound to any particular piece of land (Bruce Waltke, Book of Proverbs: 15-31, p. 127). In , the Rechabites's strict obedience to the command of their father (rather than their nomadism and abstentionism) is commended and is contrasted with the failure of Judah and Jerusalem to listen to their Father (see vv. 16f).
The third regarding Kings from  is the best support for absolute restriction on rulers and judges, though not on commoners who should receive wine and strong drink from the ruler (vv. 6f). Waltke again says, "A total prohibition, says Ross, 'would be unheard of in the ancient courts,"[fn 43: Ross, Proverbs, p. 1128.] and v. 6 assumes that the king has wine cellars.[fn 44. Meinhold, Sprüche, p. 518]" (p. 507). Moreover, Proverbs is commonly recognized as an instruction manual for princes, and these verses should be read in that context. "The epigrammatic nature of the proverbs in general concentrates on the negative side of wine and beer in this proverb [Pr. 20:1]. In 21:17 and 23:19-21, addiction and/or over-indulgence in drink or in olive oil and/or meat leads to drowsiness and/or poverty; in 31:4-5 to the miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, in 3:10 and 9:6 wine and beer function as symbols of prosperity and the good life. The same ambivalence is found elsewhere in the Old Testament." So taken as a whole, rulers are not forbidden all wine and strong drink; rather they (and by implication, others) should be judicious in its use. Waltke is certainly voicing the broad consensus (Jew, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, conservative and liberal, secular, etc.) on this issue. Even abstentionists like Methodists McClintock and Strong see this as the biblical view, though they see other pragmatic reasons for opposing alcohol.
For these reasons, I have removed these marked-up verses and have restored the previous text. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Forever

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: The article says "The Hebraic opinion of [alcoholic] wine in the time before Christ was decidedly positive." The article also claims it was "a necessary element in the life of the Hebrews."
"Hebraic opinion" -> practices the article claims are decidedly encouraged by the Old Testament itself:
That which is "like a viper": was it truly necessary according to the Holy Scripture? Even a less dogmatic defender of alcoholic wine may admit that the Old Testament hardly has a "decidedly positive" view of drinking what Proverbs 23 says is "like a viper." Furthermore, the priests  were (to say the least) hardly encouraged to drink what is "like a viper."
"Hebraic opinion" -> practices encouraged by many Hebrew people who disregarded the Holy Scripture:
The LORD decidedly rebukes the broad consensus of Israelites: "There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land."
The Israelites, by some broad consensus were increasingly acting as though "swearing and lying, killing and stealing and committing adultery" were somehow alright. Yet this common practice would still not be enough to prove that the Old Testament itself necessarily encourages these things - even in any amount, small or great.
Likewise, "all tables are full of vomit and filth" and even "the priest and the prophet" had come under the influence. Yet (to say the least) a common practice of drinking would still not be enough to prove that the Old Testament itself necessarily is "decidedly positive" about what is "like a viper."
So don't you think the article needs correction? (Don't you also think the statement about "Hebraic opinion" may need more specific terminology?)
Nephate (talk)
:The full sentence to which you are referring reads:
::The Hebraic opinion of wine in the time before Christ was decidedly positive: wine is part of the world God created and is thus "necessarily inherently good,"[citation] though excessive use is soundly condemned. 
:The full quote includes a summary of the negative mentioning of wine. Several other places in the article also emphasize the positive and the negative together, e.g., "... alcohol is a gift from God that makes life more joyous and that overindulgence, which leads to drunkenness, is a sin;" and "...on the whole, the Bible is ambivalent toward [alcoholic beverages], considering them both a blessing from God that brings merriment and a potential danger that can be unwisely and sinfully abused." See especially the reliable sources referencing this second quote, and see also the quotations from Chrysostom and Mather later in the article.
:In short, the broad consensus view of this matter is rightly represented in the article and has appropriate (some say, superabundant) citations. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Testament priests etc. not encouraged to drink 

message: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Aug 1#About 400 links to the two sites of one individual The sites were blacklisted as spam. The .edu links are to personal pages funded by the alcohol industry and whose host presents extreme POV as sourced, objective articles...the article linked to may be innocuous, but most of the links to further articles are usually not...as clicking on the "More controversies" link on that page will show. The editor created hundreds of articles and protected them via numerous sockpuppets, and, although not the case here, is most likely still trying to get the links reintroduced. A google news search on Hanson really doesn't bring up the number of WP:RS ghits other researchers do. Flowanda | Talk 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On reading that discussion and scanning a few of Hanson's edits and pages at Potsdam, I didn't find anything that would warrant the label of "extreme" (except the sock puppeteering), but rather he seems like a critical voice on some issues with an apparent (though not certain) conflict of interest because of his funding source (but cf. ). Admittedly this scanning was rather cursory, but I also confirmed that I added the ref here, not him or one of his socks. In any case, I have removed the references to his article on the history of alcohol. (Note also that when you removed one ref, it was attached to a direct quote which was then incorrectly attributed to another source. I have fixed this and removed a third reference to that article that was missed.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick scans reveal very little about anything; extreme POV may be more about the quantity of edits over the quality, or the willingness and ability to argue whatever it takes to keep your edits and links intact. And the NYT column is not applicable here; we're discussing sponsored personal pages on an .edu site, not official research. Flowanda | Talk 06:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potsdam links are not  university .edu pages