Christopher Hitchens Dies

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In a way this discussion reminds me of the teetotalers who INSIST that Jesus would NEVER had made actual alcoholic wine at the wedding in Cana. “No way!!!”[/quote]
Well he made wine for sure. I would think since he just made it, it hadn’t had a chance to ferment at all. I just go by what the bible says ya know. [/quote]

Unfermented wine? That’s just grape juice, why wouldn’t the Bible just say that instead of wine? If he’s creating this stuff out of water, I’m pretty sure they would make the effort to be somewhat accurate.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In a way this discussion reminds me of the teetotalers who INSIST that Jesus would NEVER had made actual alcoholic wine at the wedding in Cana. “No way!!!”[/quote]
Well he made wine for sure. I would think since he just made it, it hadn’t had a chance to ferment at all. I just go by what the bible says ya know. [/quote]

Unfermented wine? That’s just grape juice, why wouldn’t the Bible just say that instead of wine? If he’s creating this stuff out of water, I’m pretty sure they would make the effort to be somewhat accurate.[/quote]

Well, its not as if he was a Jew and Jews have no problem with wine whatsoever.

Or vodka.

Especially at weddings.

Jesus Christ these guys can drink.

Back to the OP:

Here is a documentary called Collision of Lives in which Hitchens and Priest Doug Wilson discuss religion.

As to the Cana wedding question, I’ll address all your comments in this one post. I’m working with half my brain tied behind my back, so it’ll be easier for me.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In a way this discussion reminds me of the teetotalers who INSIST that Jesus would NEVER had made actual alcoholic wine at the wedding in Cana. “No way!!!”

However, the “systematic” approach taken by the teetotaling crowd will simply not allow this, the proper, interpretation. [/quote]

I’m not interested in upholding anyone’s specific understanding. Before I was a Christian, I liked wine a lot. If the Saviour approved, I’d be glad to have a glass.

You are criticizing the systematic approach because you think it disagrees with your understanding of their culture.

First, I’ll say that Jesus is not obligated to do things according to the prevailing habits of the people as far as what was drunk at the average wedding. His motivation is righteousness first, not what will make everyone happy. So, he would be keeping in mind:

Pro 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Unfermented wine? That’s just grape juice, why wouldn’t the Bible just say that instead of wine? If he’s creating this stuff out of water, I’m pretty sure they would make the effort to be somewhat accurate.[/quote]
In the bible, “wine” is a general term. There is “new” and “old.” Please note:

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Obviously, as the wine gets old it ferments, which would cause and old bottle to explode.

Yes, new wine is grapejuice, as this passages makes clear:

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

One must also keep in mind that “wine” making was very primitive back then. Not the scientifically controlled process they use to day. Uncontrolled fermentation would not yield something that’s 7-10% alcohol, AND still taste good. NOBODY was drinking Christian Brothers back then. Sorry young Orion, it’s just more shenanigans by the monks.

And the systematic approach is required if you’re going to get it right, and to be one of the big boys:

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

That’s all from Mr. Chen this day. More on the Song of Solomon later. I’m still reading the 27 pager.

[quote]orion wrote:
Jesus Christ these guys can drink.
[/quote]

One other thing I want to address before I quit for the day, although I was going to just ignore it.

Orion- You have taken the Lord’s name in vain in a post to someone you know is a Christian. It’s ungentlemanly of you. I am disappointed to see it.

Read your bible more:

Exo 20:7 …for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
As to the Cana wedding question, I’ll address all your comments in this one post. I’m working with half my brain tied behind my back, so it’ll be easier for me.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In a way this discussion reminds me of the teetotalers who INSIST that Jesus would NEVER had made actual alcoholic wine at the wedding in Cana. “No way!!!”

However, the “systematic” approach taken by the teetotaling crowd will simply not allow this, the proper, interpretation. [/quote]

I’m not interested in upholding anyone’s specific understanding. Before I was a Christian, I liked wine a lot. If the Saviour approved, I’d be glad to have a glass.

You are criticizing the systematic approach because you think it disagrees with your understanding of their culture.

First, I’ll say that Jesus is not obligated to do things according to the prevailing habits of the people as far as what was drunk at the average wedding. His motivation is righteousness first, not what will make everyone happy. So, he would be keeping in mind:

Pro 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Unfermented wine? That’s just grape juice, why wouldn’t the Bible just say that instead of wine? If he’s creating this stuff out of water, I’m pretty sure they would make the effort to be somewhat accurate.[/quote]
In the bible, “wine” is a general term. There is “new” and “old.” Please note:

Mat 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Obviously, as the wine gets old it ferments, which would cause and old bottle to explode.

Yes, new wine is grapejuice, as this passages makes clear:

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

One must also keep in mind that “wine” making was very primitive back then. Not the scientifically controlled process they use to day. Uncontrolled fermentation would not yield something that’s 7-10% alcohol, AND still taste good. NOBODY was drinking Christian Brothers back then. Sorry young Orion, it’s just more shenanigans by the monks.

And the systematic approach is required if you’re going to get it right, and to be one of the big boys:

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

[/quote]

What is it you are saying about drinking? All wine was alcoholic in the ancient world right? Getting drunk is not always bad right? i.e. Noah, Abraham etc I don’t think there are many people who would argue that being a drunkard is okay but the beneficial aspects of alcohol were and are well known.

‘Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.’ - 1 Timothy 5:23

Don’t bother using a bible quote to convince a non-believer to do or not do something.

All this religious drama in a thread dedicated to the memory of an atheist.

Hitchens would love the irony.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Jesus Christ these guys can drink.
[/quote]

One other thing I want to address before I quit for the day, although I was going to just ignore it.

Orion- You have taken the Lord’s name in vain in a post to someone you know is a Christian. It’s ungentlemanly of you. I am disappointed to see it.

[/quote]

He did do it on purpose and his specific intent was to offend.

That’s all the more reason for him to do it.
[/quote]

Nonsense.

I think it is quite clear when I want to offend someone.

Not that that these are the only times that I do.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Jesus Christ these guys can drink.
[/quote]

One other thing I want to address before I quit for the day, although I was going to just ignore it.

Orion- You have taken the Lord’s name in vain in a post to someone you know is a Christian. It’s ungentlemanly of you. I am disappointed to see it.

Read your bible more:

Exo 20:7 …for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

[/quote]

Well in that case I am sorry I guess, though not very.

Fuck me, these guys can drink!?!

Also, I am not quite sure whether Jesus = The Lord and whether using Jesus to make a point is “taking his name in vain”.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

I’m not interested in upholding anyone’s specific understanding. Before I was a Christian, I liked wine a lot. If the Saviour approved, I’d be glad to have a glass.

You are criticizing the systematic approach because you think it disagrees with your understanding of their culture.

First, I’ll say that Jesus is not obligated to do things according to the prevailing habits of the people as far as what was drunk at the average wedding. His motivation is righteousness first, not what will make everyone happy. So, he would be keeping in mind:

Pro 23:31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

[/quote]

Man, don’t do this to yourself. Look at this verse in context. DO NOT be a cherry-picker (word of the day).

"Who has woe? Who has sorrow?
Who has contentions? Who has complaining?
Who has wounds without cause?
Who has redness of eyes?
30 Those who linger long over wine,
Those who go to taste mixed wine.
31 Do not look on the wine when it is red,
When it sparkles in the cup,
When it goes down smoothly;
32 At the last it bites like a serpent
And stings like a viper.
33 Your eyes will see strange things
And your mind will utter perverse things.
34 And you will be like one who lies down in the middle of the sea,
Or like one who lies down on the top of a mast.

Read it in context. To be continued.
[/quote]
I have quoted the verse specifically mentioning wine from this passage to be sure. The context is drunkenness, were it starts from, and what it results in. It starts with the fermented/mixed wine.

I know what you are suggesting of course. You are saying that it’s okay to drink fermented wine as long as you don’t tarry long and do the other stuff. But that requires YOU to pull the verses apart. This passage is NOT stating that is okay. It is stating what is not ok. You can infer that if you choose. It is not an explicit statement from the passage. You might just summarize the passage, and say drinking alcoholic wine is risky behavior, and most likely leads to sin.