Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

It could be that the more anti-alcohol sections are more likely in terms of 'Do not drink just to drink.'  Possibly with 'reserve it for celebrations.'

[Phmcw]

If there's a bunch of people and choice wine is expensive
I could see everbody downing a glass of the good stuff, not getting wasted, and still tuning out and having to drink diluted weaker wine

Good =/= contains a lot of alcohol
Cheap and expensive wine have about the same amount of alcohol. It's the flavor that makes one more expensive than the other.

Not true for the time's standards. A well made wine will be stronger than their usual brew. Nowadays, they are all around 10 to 14 degree 12 being the sweet spot. And with 100 litters of EXELLENT wine on top of whatever the Groom already brought, you can get A LOT of peoples drunk.

After checking wikipedia, good Roman wine wasn't low alcohol anyway.

@Cryxis, no because that wouldn't fit with what the master of the feast said next.

[Lord Shonus]

Honestly, the whole "Blatant Dionysus Ripoff" thing makes more and more sense as you think about it. SJ was depicted as acting a lot like a god of booze would.

Like nearly all "Jesus is an X ripoff" theories, the Dionysus one relies on 1 part similarity to 99 parts "making shit up." There are very few genuine similarities between the two beliefs, and the only genuine one is that both involve a transmutation into wine at some point. Dionysus was the product of a dalliance between Zeus and a mortal woman, often cited as a similarity to the Marian tradition, but this was not only very common in Greek beliefs (as opposed to the singular event that the birth of Christ is in Christianity), but the results are wildly different. Far from making Dionysus's mother completely pure of all sin (as El Shaddai did with Mary), Zeus killed her, sewing the unborn Dionysus into his thigh to allow him to be born. Dionysys was raised by another god (or a king, depending on source) rather than a humble carpenter, which is completely different from the core concepts of humility. Further, while Dionysus did have a death-and-rebirth deal, it was a cyclical one that controlled the seasons, not a one-time sacrifice to cleanse the sins of mankind.

As for the one true similarity, the party being discussed here, there is a long Biblical tradition of El Shaddai's prophets duplicating the alleged miracles of pagan gods to prove that His power was greater. The concept that many of the miracles of Christ were very similar to those attributed to other, older gods is often used as justification for claiming that the Biblical authors "ripped off" another myth, but it is pretty heavily implied that those similarities were deliberate. On GOD's part.


(Also, the "Christianity ripped off X" idea was a 19th century fad that had been abandoned by the scholarly community after only a few decades, and nowadays is only proposed by a few scholars (most of which are not favorably received in the anthropological community), or by Dan Brownian authors that are trying to drum up controversy to boost sales. It's pretty discredited among anthropologists and sociologists.)

[TD1]

Exactly. It's not just Jesus ripped of X, it's Jesus ripped off X, Y, Z, Ab, Cf and ZZ

Not to mention drawing from its own myths from the Old Testament (Prophecy needed to be fulfilled)

So, even were Jesus to exist (which he may have done, wouldn't be the first man to supposedly ascend to godhood) he had an awful lot tagged onto him.

[Descan]

Even if there was a dude at one point from whom Christianity descended, I doubt we'd recognize him as such, and I doubt we'll ever know for sure one way or another.

Especially because there's like, zero pagan references to Jesus until the church was already pretty widespread, and those references are more "Oh hey, lookit the new cult" rather than "Oh hey, you remember that Jesus fellow?"

Plus there's the whole "There was no census at the time recorded*, King Herod died before Christ's supposed birth, and even if there was a census, it wasn't Roman policy to make you travel to your birth-place for it, because that makes 0 sense what-so-ever."

*Or rather, the census was like 10 years after Herods death, so one or the other has to be false.

[TD1]

Also, why the hell would Joseph go to Bethlehem? Because of his (supposed) great great great great great great....etc. grandfather living there? Hardly seems like something a Census would care about.

They twisted facts to conform to the prophecy of Micah.

[scrdest]

He made  an awful lot of wine just for an after dinner sip. In fact, if he didn't want them drunk, why make so much? Any individual could Choose to get drunk with the amount he gave them, and even then, the fact he had to make a new batch of wine to replace the old is highly suggestive that the party-goers had had an awful lot to drink before hand.

Or they didn't have enough

Here
A guy can afford to buy about 8 bottles of wine
He invites the whole town to his wedding
There is enough wine for most people to have a half a glass of it, others get non at all
Guy asks Jesus to make some more so sverbody can have enough

a) Wine in the Middle East is and was a ridiculously common drink, being tastier and safer than water. Hell, you can get wine in a McDonalds in the Middle East, allegedly.

b) If he could only afford eight bottles, he most likely wouldn't have invited the whole town. That would be a pretty blatant admission of poverty, and that was serious business.

c) The bible explicitly mentions the volume of the wine Jesus made - six jars 20-30 gallons each (or 75-115 liters) according to NIV, so 120 gallons/454 liters by a conservative estimate or 150 gallons/568 liters on average. That is lot of wine. About six hundred bottles at least. If you go by KJV, the absolute least amount is even higher, at 491 liters.

[Gentlefish]

I'm honestly willing to say that absolutely everyone was getting smashed back then. Christian-wise, it isn't a sin. Christ, I'm fairly sure, never said anything about how imbibing as wrong. I mean, his blood is wine or wine is his blood or something. Sure it leads to temptation.

What doesn't?

I mean, according to the bible' we're all sinners to begin with, meaning we're ready to sin at the drop of a hat. And alchohol depresses the part of the brain that's like "You shouldn't do that" so of course you sin. You're prone to it. That's what the whole confessions deal is. Or, in protestant sects, you pray for forgiveness. In either case, if you mean it (and a good Christian should), you're forgiven for what transpired while drunk. At least, in god's eyes. There may still be some secular issues to deal with depending on what you did.

And if you understand that it's a problem, it's up to you to change it and not be such a terrible person on booze, or give up booze all together. Otherwise your confessions or prayers of forgiveness aren't really honest. So then it -is- a sin. Anyway, drinking isn't a sin. It's what drinking might make you do that's a sin.

For being not-Christian, wow. Knowing this much surprises me.

[TD1]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+6%3A9-10

"[No]drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Or, in King James Bible:

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

[Gentlefish]

Drunkards aren't people partying though. They're alcoholics. Which i mentioned under the "not actually repenting for their sins" seeing as they ask for forgiveness then make the same mistake again.

[Orange Wizard]

There's a lot of verses in the NT talking about drunkeness == Bad.

The point of contention here is "does that mean getting drunk, or alcoholism?"

Unfortunately, we're not told. We are simply not told if Jesus' party pals got absolutely sloshed (though it does seem likely) or only slightly tipsy.
Personally, I don't think that getting drunk once in a while is bad per se (although I think it's better to avoid it), but the impaired reasoning that comes with it could lead to bad decisions.

At this point, the most satisfying resolution to the argument is to say we don't know, and there are multiple interpretations that are possible.
One is correct, and it is of course mine but we can't know which, making the entire discourse utterly pointless.

[TheDarkStar]

There's a lot of verses in the NT talking about drunkeness == Bad.

The point of contention here is "does that mean getting drunk, or alcoholism?"

Unfortunately, we're not told. We are simply not told if Jesus' party pals got absolutely sloshed (though it does seem likely) or only slightly tipsy.
Personally, I don't think that getting drunk once in a while is bad per se (although I think it's better to avoid it), but the impaired reasoning that comes with it could lead to bad decisions.

At this point, the most satisfying resolution to the argument is to say we don't know, and there are multiple interpretations that are possible.
One is correct, and it is of course mine but we can't know which, making the entire discourse utterly pointless.

There are some Christian religions that are against any kind of alcohol consumption, though.

[Orange Wizard]

And they're blatantly wrong, but I'm not allowed to say that in case I offend someone.

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

So hows about people's views of gambling?

[TheDarkStar]

And they're blatantly wrong, but I'm not allowed to say that in case I offend someone.

No offense taken  .