Jump to content

Talk:Christian views on alcohol/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Patron Saint of Beer

Was claimed to be St Adrian, but he's not listed here. Googling shows that an earlier Adrian may well be the correct one, so for the time being, I've unlinked this to avoid confusion. Rodhullandemu 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to note it, but I fixed this. The claim was correct, but the link was pointing to the wrong person. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

POV?

User:Rursus put two POV flags on this sentence from the article: "Since nearly all Christians base their views of alcohol, in whole or in part, on their understanding of what the Bible says about it, the Bible is the single most important source on the subject, followed by Christian tradition." The given reasoning was that "the Bible is the single most important source on the subject" is "Trying to sneak in a POV!!" and that tradition being the second most important source on the topic is POV because "protestants don't generally adher to a 'tradition'."

How could this sentence be better expressed and with more neutrality? It is well qualified enough with "nearly all" and "in whole or in part". Who is being excluded? What POV is being pushed? It seems to me to fit Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican and Protestants pretty well.

Also, Protestants most certainly do adhere to tradition. Some fundamentalists (speciously) claim to have "no creed by Christ" (though how they think about Christ is remarkably well aligned with existing traditions), but nearly all evangelicals, for instance, explicitly adhere to some form of tradition like Nicea and Chalcedon on the Trinity. Moreover, different groups like Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, etc. have developed their own the traditions (including confessions, creeds, and catechisms) which are viewed as having subsidiary authority and are tests of orthodoxy. Sola scriptura and Prima scriptura do not mean "no tradition"; rather, they mean Scripture is the final, authoritative word. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I revised it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

SBC

The prohibitionist section at the end lists the SBC as prohibitionists. But the linked 2006 statement doesn't seem to me to be prohibitionist. It does not, for instance, say that the Bible prohibits alcohol. It only says that the Bible warns about the dangers of alcohol. Moreover, it claims empirical data, which also sounds abstentionist (though it could be a supplement to a prohibitionist position). On the other hand, it also says that alcoholic beverages shouldn't be manufactured, which sounds prohibitionist, but as a matter of logic does not have to be. Thus, one can hold that use of alcohol is imprudent in our day and age, and that for the same reason it is imprudent to manufacture or sell alcohol. Pruss (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the second reference for the SBC could be taken to be either abstentionist or prohibitionist and doesn't detail exactly what the SBC believes the biblical position is, but the first reference, which AFAICT has not been repealed or superseded, calls the use/sale of alcohol "unholy" and "folly and sin", not just imprudent or unwise. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
SBC vs alcohol! The SBC 2006 resolution is SBC's 62nd resolution against alcohol since 1886! Officelamp (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Secular temperance movement

User:Chris Henniker added these sentences to the section on the temperance movement:

At the same time, there were secular temperance organisations connected to the labour movement. A good example would be the Scottish Prohibition Party, founded by Bob Stewart, who followed the British Labour Party on all other issues. There was a Marxist offshoot called the Prohibition and Reform Party, which later became part of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1920.

I removed them (without much of an edit message -- sorry), not because they are false (there are no sources given here, but I don't have reason to suspect their veracity), but because they constitute a factoid of minor relevance to the topic of that section and the article as a whole. Just trying to keep it focused as a summary rather than exhaustive detail. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of secular temperence movements, just to give the bigger picture. The temperance movement was even connected to early feminism as well, so it should be explored. Chris Henniker (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It's fine for them to be explored in the larger web of articles related to the temperance movement. I just don't think that they should be explored here in this article which is, per the title, concerned with Christian views and which is already quite long. (Consider: Why not also include Muslim views, Judaic views, Hindu views, etc.? These would also be beyond the stated scope.) Perhaps in Temperance movement or a new "Main article" or "See also" to a subsection thereof, e.g., Secular views of the temperance movement? --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Einie101

I reverted some edits by User:Einie101. Here's why.

  • Wine vs. "fruit of the vine" was adequately explained and sourced in footnotes. No need to clutter up the main text.
  • The additional, inspecific reference to Patton's booklet doesn't add anything. It could come back if it had a page number and/or a quote specifically related to the claim being sourced there.
  • Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and Conservative Mennonites were all added to the list of abstentionists. This should be sourced from official church teachings, but watch the distinction between abstentionists and prohibitionists (the key difference being, is it a sin to drink or not, according to their official teaching?). Also, it's overkill to include three relatively small groups in the same family. One will do -- the largest or most prominent (Amish?).
  • The medical claim was (1) unsourced as far as its factuality and (2) not relevant to an article about religious views (not medical views) of alcohol. These problems could be overcome and the sentence restored if it were sourced to a prominent abstentionist making the claim. Something like "Soandso, head of the ethics council for the General Conference Mennonite Church, said his denomination does not drink alcohol because 'the body doesn't break it down the same way as sugar ... '[ref to webpage or other published work where he said this]"

Let me know if you have any concerns or questions about this. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"wine" in section "Reformation"

The mere references to "bread and wine" by the reformation confessions have been subtlety misconstrued by this section. (Consider: it is a subsection within a section on Alcohol: "Alcohol in Christian history and tradition".)

The precise meaning of "wine" is understood variously by various people - some narrowly, some not. (Anyway, the Bible itself never uses the actual word "wine" in reference to the Lord's Supper. It says "fruit of the vine", "the cup".)

It is misleading for the article to imply that everybody in the reformation necessarily rejected "must" as something improper for the Lord's Supper. (Even before the reformation, Aquinas etc. did not.)

If some persons (Roman Catholic or Protestant, or whoever) did use a bit of fermented wine for the sacrament - it does not follow that they also strongly insisted on excluding "must" wine for the sacrament.

So I suggest this section be reworded so that it won't overstate the historical importance of the passing reference to "bread and wine" by reformation confessions. Officelamp (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is unnecessary because the article as it stands represents a broad consensus of historians, theologians, etc. from Jewish, Christian, and secular traditions and the literature they have produced on the subject, and it also gives some space to those like yourself who take a minority view. Wikipedia is a collection of generally received knowledge, and I believe the paragraph in question qualifies as written.
Moreover, must is not even mentioned in that section. I take your point to be that you think they (who exactly?) may sometimes mean "must" when they said "wine." Why do you think this? What reliable sources do you have documenting this? I don't think any of the Magisterial Reformers would reject must as invalid, but they, like Aquinas (see the section on the Middle Ages), wouldn't have preferred it to mature wine. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Relevance: remember the article is about alcohol and this section is about alcohol. The article is not a discussion of all things concerning the Lord's Supper - except specifically as these things relate to Christian views on alcohol.
You seem to be agreed: we have no reason to think the reformers would have rejected must as invalid for the Lord's Supper. But after the time of the reformers, we know some people do now reject it as invalid - even for converted alcoholics. It appears they do go beyond what some would say: "the best interests of the converted alcoholic are served by having wine in the communion service." (Vos)
If any readers may now be given the idea that the reformers etc. had likewise rejected any must in the Lord's Supper (even for former alcoholics etc.) then what relevant "reliable sources" are provided to document it?
Yet if we have no relevant sources to show the reformers (or others before the reformers) always rejected must as invalid, and if the article can give readers the contrary impression by using irrelevant quotes, then why can't the article be improved? You like relevant verification? I do also.:-) Officelamp (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I still don't quite follow what you're trying to get at. Yes, the Reformers, like St. Thomas before them, would have allowed must in communion when wine was not available, but ordinarily they would expect wine in communion, as the confessions indicate, and when they used the word "wine" in their writings, sermons, and confessions they were generally not thinking of must because wine *was* available (cf. Calvin's salary and Luther's many comments related to wine).
They believed that ordinary wine is what Jesus used at the Last Supper, as did everyone else until around the 1800s. They probably would have allowed other substitutions of the elements at need, but those don't deserve mention here either, as the section is rightly summarizing the common case, not extraordinary circumstances.
As for alcoholism, that is an anachronistic concept for the Reformers, who came well before the medicalization of what they called the sins of drunkenness or dissipation as alcoholism. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Spurgeon

Flex says "re-source to a less partisan take." Flex replaced the link which had the greatest documentation of Spurgeon http://www.nodrinking.com/charles-spurgeon-everybody-become-abstainers/. I feel it is unfortunate that Flex replaced the 1882 Spurgeon quote etc. with a quote from some web site written by somebody who seemed unaware of Spurgeon's final position on alcohol from about 1882 onwards. compare Flex's changes. Flex moved Spurgeon to the section on Abstentionism, rather than moving it to Prohibitionism.

Spurgeon (1882): “Next to the preaching of the Gospel, the most necessary thing to be done in England is to induce our people to become abstainers.”

Worth quoting would be Spurgeon's own view on Prohibitionism (1884): ‘Those beer shops are the curse of this country—no good ever can come of them, and the evil they do no tongue can tell; the publics were bad enough, but the beer-shops are a pest; I wish the man who made the law to open them had to keep all the families that they have brought to ruin. Beer shops are the enemies of the home; therefore, the sooner their licenses are taken away, the better. Poor men don’t need such places, nor rich men either; they are all worse and no better, like Tom Norton’s wife. Anything that hurts the home is a curse and ought to be hunted down, as gamekeepers do to the vermin in the copses.’

Yet the preacher noted how easily some became very angry, ‘I see that great objection has been taken’ against him suggesting that abstinence would make a good example - even when he had preached it very very softly initially. In hindsight Spurgeon recalled, ‘I did not urge abstinence as a duty to one’s self, as I might have done; but I gently placed it on the footing of concern for the welfare of others.’ He quipped, ‘Are they so insecure in their own position that they are afraid to have it challenged, even in the gentlest manner?’

Claimed: "Spurgeon never condemned alcohol as inherently evil." Where does Spurgeon say this from about 1882 onwards? I can't see where.

"Charles Spurgeon promoted teetotalism more and more consistently and strongly from the 1880s following a closer examination of the Holy Bible." http://www.nodrinking.com/charles-spurgeon-everybody-become-abstainers/ Spurgeon said: ‘I abstain myself from alcoholic drink in every form.’ He preached, ‘That which goes under the name of wine is not true wine, but a fiery, brandied concoction of which I feel sure that Jesus would not have tasted a drop.’ Officelamp (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

From my reading, Spurgeon was moderationist for a good part of his life but later became either an abstentionist or prohibitionist. I'll investigate further.
In any case, my point about reliable sourcing is that linking to "nodrinking.com" is not be the optimal source for a controversial claim or for interpreting the original source material in a neutral way. The Gospel Coalition, which was the source for the claim that Spurgeon was an abstentionist rather than a prohibitionist (and which, unlike nodrinking.com, is notable enough to have a page in the Wikipedia), appeared to me to present a balanced, summary view and was written by one who classifies himself as an abstentionist. Further research may prove his summary is inadequate, but time will tell. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

3.6 Methodism

This paragraph seems to me to seriously misrepresent John Wesley. In the cited sermon, he is giving a hypothetical example. He continues: 'If you add, "It is not poison to me, though it be to others;" then I say, Throw it away for thy brother's sake...'. HuPi (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It's in context, well cited and a later section talks about argument to absurdity from Martin Luther. If one wants more detail on John Wesley, one is free to go to his article. Hopefully, it's a GA as well. If not, please do help out and make it one by cited entries that are NPOV.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed two POV and uncited entries

One regarding "an incorrect view" that was uncited for obvious reasons. The other shoddily tacked onto a paragraph to support the claim by introduction of technology (drunken driving) that was also uncited.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Christian views on alcohol which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/D/DRUNKENNESS/
    Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Change to short in-line citations

Some of the in-line citations are already in short citation form eg "Raymond, pp. 83f." but most are not. I suggest that a "==References==" section is created for long citations and that the in-line citations are placed in a section called "Notes" (per the recommendations at WP:CITEVAR). The reason for suggesting this is because in an article as heavily cited as this one it is very hard to see the text clearly when in edit mode. -- PBS (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christian views on alcohol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

John Wesley was NOT a teetotaller

There is a myth in many American churches that Wesley abstained from alcohol. This legitimated the Methodists' support for teetotalism and prohibition. In fact the historic evidence is that he drank moderately - as I've shown with two quotes from his writings, with a resultant change to the contents of the section. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me a mistake for the article to say John's letter to Susanna shows if John himself drank "though was unusual in restricting himself to that". Rather John mentioned "your drinking but one glass of wine, or my rising at a fixed hour" - so he was not referring to himself concerning drinking. In any case, John was here simply dismissing those who thought their limits be too restrictive. In any case, Susanna did reject as especially ridiculous the "pretense of drinking for the sake of company". Officelamp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Some corrections made. Officelamp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Biased sections?

Having come here - and found some GREAT quotes - on the subject, I'm now reviewing the article in the light of the other data I've found. I've already highlighted the issue with John Wesley. I'm also unimpressed at the interpretation that is put on the writing of Clement of Alexandria, who, whilst concerned at its effects, ultimately accepts that alcoholic wine IS appropriate, quoting from the Wisdom of Sirach, which has a strongly moderationist quote. (Sirach 31:25-31). I'd like to hear if others are also concerned. I hope to return to correct the section on Clement in due course. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Christian views on alcohol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Christian views on alcohol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christian_views_on_alcohol/Archive_2&oldid=1136612117"