Christians and Alcohol etc

monosharp

Long story short. This happens to me and friends of mine frequently and I'm very curious about peoples opinions on it.

So heres what happened to my mate (Catholic) today who is an English teacher here in Korea.

Conversation about restaurants
...........
Mate: So when you go to <restaurant> what do you drink ?
Student: I don't drink alcohol because of my religion.
Mate: So your muslim ? (knowing very well she wasn't muslim)
Student: No I'm Christian, the bible says we shouldn't drink alcohol.
Mate: No it doesn't. Jesus turned water into wine etc people are always drinking in the bible.
Student: Yeah but it's just hard to control so I don't drink.
Mate: So its your choice ? It has nothing to do with your religion ?
Student: No its because I'm Christian.
<Facepalm and change of subject>

Please note this person (most of these people) are not methodist or any 'established' church, just some local setup by some guy, no affiliation to any other church/organisation.

Alcohol is just the most common one. I've heard various sets and sub-sets of what the bible tells them not to do.

e.g. Tobacco, drugs, pop music, movies (of any kind), bars, nightclubs, concerts, Chinese medicine, martial arts, yoga, the beach, mountains (said to me because the mountains are buddhist temples :rolleyes: not buddhist temples on mountains but the actual mountains themselves are apparently buddhist places), restaurants, university (yep, education is a no-no according to the bible), travel (abroad), eating meat, eating fish, eating foreign food, owning a computer (using one is fine apparently), cell phones, interaction with people of other faiths.

So basically you have these small independent churches run by some man/woman who can demand up to 10% of a persons salary to be a member telling them what the bible 'says' when it actually says no such thing.

And this is not that uncommon and its very visibly growing here.

What are peoples opinions of these 'the bible says what I say it says' churches ? Are they growing in Europe/the US ?

I'd also like to point out that many of these small independent churches are actually run by people with absolutely no theological education and very often are run by ex-criminals because they can't get any other work.

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Long story short. This happens to me and friends of mine frequently and I'm very curious about peoples opinions on it.

So heres what happened to my mate (Catholic) today who is an English teacher here in Korea.

Conversation about restaurants
...........
Mate: So when you go to <restaurant> what do you drink ?
Student: I don't drink alcohol because of my religion.
Mate: So your muslim ? (knowing very well she wasn't muslim)
Student: No I'm Christian, the bible says we shouldn't drink alcohol.
Mate: No it doesn't. Jesus turned water into wine etc people are always drinking in the bible.
Student: Yeah but it's just hard to control so I don't drink.
Mate: So its your choice ? It has nothing to do with your religion ?
Student: No its because I'm Christian.
<Facepalm and change of subject>

Please note this person (most of these people) are not methodist or any 'established' church, just some local setup by some guy, no affiliation to any other church/organisation.

Alcohol is just the most common one. I've heard various sets and sub-sets of what the bible tells them not to do.

e.g. Tobacco, drugs, pop music, movies (of any kind), bars, nightclubs, concerts, Chinese medicine, martial arts, yoga, the beach, mountains (said to me because the mountains are buddhist temples :rolleyes: not buddhist temples on mountains but the actual mountains themselves are apparently buddhist places), restaurants, university (yep, education is a no-no according to the bible), travel (abroad), eating meat, eating fish, eating foreign food, owning a computer (using one is fine apparently), cell phones, interaction with people of other faiths.

So basically you have these small independent churches run by some man/woman who can demand up to 10% of a persons salary to be a member telling them what the bible 'says' when it actually says no such thing.

And this is not that uncommon and its very visibly growing here.

What are peoples opinions of these 'the bible says what I say it says' churches ? Are they growing in Europe/the US ?

I'd also like to point out that many of these small independent churches are actually run by people with absolutely no theological education and very often are run by ex-criminals because they can't get any other work.

Almost irrespective of whether these churches are run by Christians or no, we can see a most telling thing: the flavour of Religion and how it raises it's ugly head in so many guises.

I made the point elsewhere recently about Jesus's teaching his disciples in the so-called sermon on the mount (chap 5,6,7 in Matthew). He took the Law (on murder, adultery, praying, oaths, etc) and showed that there lay a spirit behind it. That God wasn't interested so much in people not murdering or sleeping around. He was interested in a purity of heart that would recoil from anger and lust - since they are the inward machinations from whence murder and adultery eventually come. How could one expect to lust after women whilst unmarried (thus claiming not having broken the Law on adultery) but remain unadulterous in marriage when the lust-die was already cast?

Such a purity of heart can only be achieved by an inward work of God by his Holy Spirit. Man cannot achieve this otherwise - no matter how hard he tries.

And so to these churches. Do they smell as the Pharisees did? Is it the case that the word of God is examined and the Law is expanded upon so as to arrive at a list of outward do's and don't which don't at all address the inward desire of a person? I think so. I think they reek of it.

Which is merely Religion: having to do with adherence to the Law. Which is but death. Which isn't life in Christ.

philologos

The student was right. It mightn't be compulsory because of his religious beliefs, but he might do it as he mightn't be so sure if he can control himself with alcohol. Some people do abstain from alcohol for this reason.

monosharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

Such a purity of heart can only be achieved by an inward work of God by his Holy Spirit. Man cannot achieve this otherwise - no matter how hard he tries.

Whats your opinion of Buddhists/Buddhist monks and other religions (maybe hinduism) where many people do indeed fulfill this 'purity of heart' ?

Of course thats assuming you accept that some do. Do you ?

Could you expand on what you mean exactly by 'purity of heart' ?

Apart from the above, I think I can agree with almost everything you said.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

The student was right.

She said the bible says don't drink alcohol, is that right ?

It mightn't be compulsory because of his religious beliefs, but he might do it as he mightn't be so sure if he can control himself with alcohol.

I know someone would say this. She doesn't 'know' its hard to control (for her) because shes never had a drink. She was told its hard to control by her pastor.

The same way she has been told not to date/marry outside her church. Not her religion (Christianity), her actual physical church.
The same way shes been told handing over 10% of her salary to the church is a good act.
The same way shes been told Buddhism/Confucianism is evil.( literally in those words)

Heres an interesting point I heard about this today after I posted. Most of the do's and don't preached by these small independent churches are usually concerned with spending money. Alcohol, tobacco, bars, nightclubs, concerts etc all cost money. At the same time these people are expected (required in some cases) to donate 10% of their salary to these churches.

Are these do's and don't cost-cutting measures to make sure the 'flock' keeps giving ?

Some people do abstain from alcohol for this reason.

I know.

philologos

I have a feeling that this is another one of these threads.

You don't seem to be even appreciating my point, that some people regard it easier in their Christian walk, not to drink.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a feeling that this is another one of these threads.

You don't seem to be even appreciating my point, that some people regard it easier in their Christian walk, not to drink.

No I do realise your point and accept it. But your not getting mine.

She was told the bible says don't drink. The bible does not say 'don't drink'.

philologos

monosharp, it's a bit difficult to discuss with you when you write an OP, and then add additional information as the posts go on, so that our posts don't actually pertain to the situation anymore. How can we be expected to follow if the information isn't all clear from the start.

I have feeling this is just another Christianity is awful in South Korea rant.

crotalus667

monosharp wrote: »

Are these do's and don't cost-cutting measures to make sure the 'flock' keeps giving ?
.

Yes and no it does help that they have more money around to "sow the seed" but it is also a struggel for a lot of people or at least they come into contact with it repaetidly in a short space of time which keeps the "i need the church" mind set

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Whats your opinion of Buddhists/Buddhist monks and other religions (maybe hinduism) where many people do indeed fulfill this 'purity of heart' ?

Of course thats assuming you accept that some do. Do you ?

As I say, Religions (including Christianity insofar as it becomes Religious) are subject to the pollution that is Phariseeism - that which ignores the heart and seeks only the obey the outward law. But religions (including Christianity insofar as it becomes Religious) are also subject to the pollution that suggests that a person can achieve purity of spirit under own steam - that obtaining purity of spirit depends ultimately on their own action (indeed, this second pollution is the essence of all religions bar non-Religious Christianity).

Buddhism does this. Hinduism does this. Christianity (classically eg: Roman Catholicism, Jehovahs Witness, Mormonism) does this.

My opinion is that there are some really meek, compassionate, humble Buddhists out there (one of my closest friends is such a one) and that one can't help but enjoy their company. But their efforts are ultimately doomed because whilst they can strive to achieve perfection, they can never actually reach it. And in their making a god of their striving (as they must, if they are to advance), they ultimately miss out on the meaning of life: which is to know God and enjoy him leading the transformation work.

Anything can become a god - even God.

Could you expand on what you mean exactly by 'purity of heart' ?

Before I expand, let me compress.

God.

That is what I mean by purity of heart. God is characterised by meekness, humility, compassion, generousity, mercy, justness - without any hint of dilution by that which is dark. Such purity extends down into his heart - by which I mean, his motivation: genuine and without a deeper ulterior, is characterised so.

When it applies to mankind it would refer to those motivations of ours which are God-flavored. Motivations that haven't dark, self-serving ulteriors/partial ulteriors at their root. Both Christians and non-Christians can have such moments.

In the context of the sermon on the mount, it means those whose desire and drive for purity of heart is powered by their being indwelt by God. It's not a reference to those pure moments which are driven by God's general call and influence on mankind.

Apart from the above, I think I can agree with almost everything you said.

It's a characteristic of all Religions (including work-for-your-salvation Christian ones) that a postive afterlife outcome depends on what you do. It is to be expected that a non-Christian must baulk at that statement.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

monosharp, it's a bit difficult to discuss with you when you write an OP, and then add additional information as the posts go on,

Yes I should have made that clear but it wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I have feeling this is just another Christianity is awful in South Korea rant.

Well lets steer clear of that then. i'm honestly interested specifically in your opinion on churches/ministers worldwide basically making stuff up as they go along, or at very least interpreting the bible the way they want to.

Why is alcohol OK for some but others see it as against Christianity ? On what basis do they have these opinions ?

Do you know for instance how some people claim the bible does indeed say don't drink ? Because AFAIK it doesn't.

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Do you know for instance how some people claim the bible does indeed say don't drink ? Because AFAIK it doesn't.

I remember looking into this once and the case against a Christian imbibing alcoholic drink was one of those scripturally-thin-as-a-shoestring arguments: stitched together from a half-phrase here and a bent reading there.

It seemed to be one of those eisegesis events:

"Look what drink can do - drink is used by satan - drink is bad" (doctrine formed). Now let's go and find our doctrine in the Bible. Lo and behold! (kind of)". By placing emphasis in the right place you can make the Bible sound like it says what you want. Ephesians 5:18 for example:

"God's own Word is clear on this: "DO NOT be drunk on WINE"...."
(delivered in a Paisley-at-his-most-vehement accent)

monosharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

My opinion is that there are some really meek, compassionate, humble Buddhists out there (one of my closest friends is such a one) and that one can't help but enjoy their company. But their efforts are ultimately doomed because whilst they can strive to achieve perfection, they can never actually reach it.

Do you mean to say that christians achieve it in the afterlife with god or in this life ?

I could accept the afterlife with god because we have no way of knowing but I can't accept in this life.

I've met good and bad people of many different religions. But the best people I've ever met, the ones who I'd consider to be 'pure of heart', ones who are just miles ahead of the others, would be a Buddhist monk and a Catholic priest I know/knew.

I'd also like to point out that you might want to read about Buddhism a little, they don't strive for perfection, they strive for enlightenment. What you consider perfection might not necessarily be what they consider enlightenment.

And in their making a god of their striving (as they must, if they are to advance), they ultimately miss out on the meaning of life: which is to know God and enjoy him leading the transformation work.

But we're not talking about the meaning of life or whose going to heaven/hell etc.

It's a characteristic of all Religions (including work-for-your-salvation Christian ones) that a postive afterlife outcome depends on what you do. It is to be expected that a non-Christian must baulk at that statement.

How so ? Some Buddhists don't believe in an afterlife/rebirth.

monosharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Look what drink can do - drink is used by satan - drink is bad" (doctrine formed). Now let's go and find our doctrine in the Bible. Lo and behold! (kind of)". By placing emphasis in the right place you can make the Bible sound like it says what you want. Ephesians 5:18 for example:

"God's own Word is clear on this: "DO NOT be drunk on WINE"...."
(delivered in a Paisley-at-his-most-vehement accent)

Ah. So I suppose a (thin) argument can be made for the bible saying don't do it.

How do these people then deal with Jesus turning water into wine and people drinking wine throughout the bible ?

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Ah. So I suppose a (thin) argument can be made for the bible saying don't do it.

How do these people then deal with Jesus turning water into wine and people drinking wine throughout the bible ?

IIRC the argument is that that wine was non-alcoholic. All's fair in love and doctrine-extraction.

antiskeptic

monosharp wrote: »

Do you mean to say that christians achieve it in the afterlife with god or in this life ?

I could accept the afterlife with god because we have no way of knowing but I can't accept in this life.

It's complex

It will occur in the afterlife in the fullest of senses (where we experience that purity of heart without encumberance). Until then, there is a yearning for that purity driven by our our destesting the sin that stalks our 'members' (driven by the Spirit of God within who wars with the sin in our members).

In a technical sense you could see the Christian as a divided entity: consisting of a pure heart and a sin-polluted mind/body.

I've met good and bad people of many different religions. But the best people I've ever met, the ones who I'd consider to be 'pure of heart', ones who are just miles ahead of the others, would be a Buddhist monk and a Catholic priest I know/knew.

Fair enough. My Buddhist mate is similar - miles ahead of many Christians I know, including me.

As I say however, it's not the pureness of heart that matters so much as the currency the purity of heart is minted in. What worth millions of monopoly euros?

I'd also like to point out that you might want to read about Buddhism a little, they don't strive for perfection, they strive for enlightenment. What you consider perfection might not necessarily be what they consider enlightenment.

Am I correct that pure of heart striving assists in obtaining the goal of enlightenment (with enlightenment being the positive afterlife outcome I was alluding to?).

But we're not talking about the meaning of life or whose going to heaven/hell etc.

I know. I was simply pointing out that even the pursuit of a pure heart can become a god. If it's the wrong currency of purity you're trading in...

How so ? Some Buddhists don't believe in an afterlife/rebirth.

I've coined the term "positive afterlife outcome" precisely to deal with this Buddhist notion. There is after this life: which could be heaven, could be hell, could be nothing, could be lots of things. Whatever it is, it is an afterlife outcome.

In so far as it is considered desirable to obtain (even if that be 'nothingness') it can be considered positive. Thus a positive afterlife outcome

Lotsafish

Its not a contradiction, the bible says that wine makes the heart of mortal man rejoice and there are many references to people having the odd drink now and again. What it does say do not be getting drunk with wine.

So theres the point - dont drink to excess. Easy enough eh?

wolfsbane

Lotsafish wrote: »

Its not a contradiction, the bible says that wine makes the heart of mortal man rejoice and there are many references to people having the odd drink now and again. What it does say do not be getting drunk with wine.

So theres the point - dont drink to excess. Easy enough eh?

Correct. But many Christians since the 1800s made their preferred way of avoiding drunkenness into a commandment. Like the scribes of old, they thought erecting a fence around the law would be better than telling people not to walk on the grass. They are perfectly entitled to make their own arrangements - but they are not allowed to make them for others. Especially not to pass them off as God-given.

The man in the pew came to assume the Bible taught that, and so when they encountered wine being spoken of favourably they assumed it must be grape-juice, not wine. Their teachers kept quiet, as far as I can see. A sad comment on Evangelicals behaving here no better than those religions who make up their own rules and set aside God's.

_________________________________________________________________
Colossians 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— 21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” 22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

mcmickey

monosharp wrote: »

Long story short. This happens to me and friends of mine frequently and I'm very curious about peoples opinions on it.

So heres what happened to my mate (Catholic) today who is an English teacher here in Korea.

Conversation about restaurants
...........
Mate: So when you go to <restaurant> what do you drink ?
Student: I don't drink alcohol because of my religion.
Mate: So your muslim ? (knowing very well she wasn't muslim)
Student: No I'm Christian, the bible says we shouldn't drink alcohol.
Mate: No it doesn't. Jesus turned water into wine etc people are always drinking in the bible.
Student: Yeah but it's just hard to control so I don't drink.
Mate: So its your choice ? It has nothing to do with your religion ?
Student: No its because I'm Christian.
<Facepalm and change of subject>

Please note this person (most of these people) are not methodist or any 'established' church, just some local setup by some guy, no affiliation to any other church/organisation.

Alcohol is just the most common one. I've heard various sets and sub-sets of what the bible tells them not to do.

e.g. Tobacco, drugs, pop music, movies (of any kind), bars, nightclubs, concerts, Chinese medicine, martial arts, yoga, the beach, mountains (said to me because the mountains are buddhist temples :rolleyes: not buddhist temples on mountains but the actual mountains themselves are apparently buddhist places), restaurants, university (yep, education is a no-no according to the bible), travel (abroad), eating meat, eating fish, eating foreign food, owning a computer (using one is fine apparently), cell phones, interaction with people of other faiths.

So basically you have these small independent churches run by some man/woman who can demand up to 10% of a persons salary to be a member telling them what the bible 'says' when it actually says no such thing.

And this is not that uncommon and its very visibly growing here.

What are peoples opinions of these 'the bible says what I say it says' churches ? Are they growing in Europe/the US ?

I'd also like to point out that many of these small independent churches are actually run by people with absolutely no theological education and very often are run by ex-criminals because they can't get any other work.

Well i'm a practising Catholic and like many other Catholics I take a few drinks once or twice a week. Alcohol can be dangerous no doubt, however if an individual is responcible with it, it can do little harm. Though ironically I can see why some religions ban it, it has done some terrible harm to some people.