Are You Drinking Too Much?

Thread starter #42
I think LittleDrummerBoy is a good preacher. I don't see his pride as being any greater than anyone else on this forum.

In fact I sometimes see the pot calling the kettle black.
I run where I am sent. I preach what I am told.

Now don't get me wrong, half my family probably drink too much. More than a few are alcoholics. Also drug abuse is in my family. I know it's affects. Obesity too. Lack of exercise, for sure.

Let's suppose a wedding though, should I not serve wine because of my families alcohol problem?
I didn't serve alcohol at my own wedding for that very reason. Right choice? Who knows.

When it comes time for my own children to marry, I will honor their choice, praise God for providing the spouse and the occasion, and write the check. Will I drink on those occasions? Not if it causes a brother to stumble.
 
Topics such as this one are often forgotten that a person has to have a personal conviction over it, so their enlightenment is thrown heavily at those who have yet to see. The Bible does not forbid taking a drink - it does speak against drunkenness.

At what point between a swallow and waisted is something each man has to deal with based on their own weaknesses when learning to live righteous, holy, etc.
I have taken what you say to mean this (so please correct me if I am wrong)

(With) topics such as this (such topics may include practices/preferences/activities that are not specifically fordidden...and quite possibly even allowed?) it is (easily?) often forgotten that they are left open to personal conviction (so that one) who has strong personal conviction may find himself over emphasizing (what may be a matter of less consequence?) it (almost fruitlessly?) to those who who do not yet have any conviction (yet to see?) over it. (????)

Correct my understanding as needed. I am not trying to make what you say more clear...only seeking to establish if I am understanding you.
 
I have taken what you say to mean this (so please correct me if I am wrong)

(With) topics such as this (such topics may include practices/preferences/activities that are not specifically fordidden...and quite possibly even allowed?) it is (easily?) often forgotten that they are left open to personal conviction (so that one) who has strong personal conviction may find himself over emphasizing (what may be a matter of less consequence?) it (almost fruitlessly?) to those who who do not yet have any conviction (yet to see?) over it. (????)

Correct my understanding as needed. I am not trying to make what you say more clear...only seeking to establish if I am understanding you.
Correct - with the caveat that im not saying what’s allowed and what’s not.

People are people and their minds can be a dangerous playground that they battle with for themselves. If they’re convicted over something, they’ll condemn those that aren’t. If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it. And they’ll sling the meat to new converts instead of milk.

A prime example outside of drinking is a TV. Someone that struggled with porn, etc. may feel convicted and not have one in their home. He has absolutely no business to quote scripture concerning “not setting wicked / evil things before your eyes” in order condemn someone else that has a TV. Although there might be enough scripture to support his conviction, there’s not enough to condemn someone else.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #45
A prime example outside of drinking is a TV. Someone that struggled with porn, etc. may feel convicted and not have one in their home. He has absolutely no business to quote scripture concerning “not setting wicked / evil things before your eyes” in order condemn someone else that has a TV. Although there might be enough scripture to support his conviction, there’s not enough to condemn someone else.
This is an important point - thanks for brining it up. As we go through life, the Holy Spirit often leads us to make certain changes that are for US. They become legalisms if we try and impose them on others.

An important example in my life was throwing away all my rock n roll albums shortly after I was born again. Rock n roll had discipled me in lots of ungodly things for many years. On the one hand, I could testify about what God had done for me and the Holy Spirit leading me to throw away the rock music. On the other hand creating a new "rule" for other Christians would be inappropriate.

I think most Christians can give testimony of disciplines added to their lives that bear good fruit. But it is an essential part of Christian liberty for each believer to walk in the Spirit and allow God alone to bring conviction and leading. In Scripture, we see frequent attempts of religious people to apply additional requirements. It is a common theme that God has his people rebuke those trying to bring additional human requirements. Additional human requirements are a yoke that God does not want on his people.
 
Correct - with the caveat that im not saying what’s allowed and what’s not.

People are people and their minds can be a dangerous playground that they battle with for themselves. If they’re convicted over something, they’ll condemn those that aren’t. If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it. And they’ll sling the meat to new converts instead of milk.

A prime example outside of drinking is a TV. Someone that struggled with porn, etc. may feel convicted and not have one in their home. He has absolutely no business to quote scripture concerning “not setting wicked / evil things before your eyes” in order condemn someone else that has a TV. Although there might be enough scripture to support his conviction, there’s not enough to condemn someone else.
Well said, and thank you for the response.

If I correctly also follow the arc of LilDrummer Boys ministry/postings...he has (if I recall correctly) sensed a calling to what is/are commonly called "Red Necks" and not unwilling to find identity among them. (Perhaps reminiscent of "to the Jews I became as a Jew"). He is not ashamed to extol some of those benefits they embrace in their identity (so as not to be an offense to them)...that (according to the understanding he has of his ministry) he might "win some".

Just as perhaps Paul would not enter a synagogue and first say "hey the law is all ultimately useless to us except as a shadow"...but rather use it to help guide toward the benefit of Christ being the very (superior) embodiment of every good gift ever given by God. To see a superseding...even appointed. (See that shadow? Now follow it to the substance that cast it!)

And I agree so whole heartedly with you as to conviction and what then becomes flow from personal experience how that a coloring of ministry is complicated by:

If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it.
(Which as I write this I have just read his post in regards to his rock albums)

The ministry of meat in due season is all but impossible except for faith, I am convinced.

And, if I continue to take you correctly, ministry (such as it may be called) can even be injurious (for it is not true ministry) if one is merely going about to impose their own convictions against the liberty of Christ.

And though we may not immediately recognize any...or everyone who has undergone the true ministry of Christ toward our own efforts at ministry (we could call it chastening or reproval) we might agree (?) it is a real thing.

But I can't even lay that upon anyone...all I can say is there is a place where Christ can show a man "You ain't doin' nothing but serving your own self in what you think is ministry by my Spirit". One has to measure...and one may find repentance too wonderful a gift there. But a most welcome gift there. (Oh, Lord, I been handing out hand grenades as bread! and encouraging an eating!)

The things a man identifies himself by, and/or might be drawn into...well...I ain't found LDB lacking in disclosure. This don't make him anything at all of itself, except that he's plain he's writing/talking often to what he addresses as Red Necks (for Jesus), and if I (or any man) find him either a help...or no help at all, it could just as easily be that I am reading someone elses mail (Do I consider myself a red neck?) as it could be a right judgment upon a, or his, ministry.

And that's specifically what I meant when saying a man who is "found" teaching (by our own appraisal) may not be saying "I am a teacher to all". How much more when a man says "I am in this case sent to the Red Necks".

(And who of us can say "but there ain't no red necks here"? we never know who's watching even were we to find some agreement that "none of us are"...but this could be where we get flushed out by the wise..."why then do you read the mail I have prepared for them?") For if one admits they are "not a red neck"...how would they know the language that might be prepared for them?

Oh, but this way is all but impossible for a man to navigate alone!

This bit of wisdom from you is, to me, superbly embraceable.

If they don’t condemn it, they feel they’re condoning it.
It could be there's a lifetime of mining that to see whether it truly is...true?

Is a man condoning what he refuses to condemn?

Lack of condemnation might indeed...somewhere along the way, be shown to be the signal indicator of what a man "condones" in his own heart...the death of Christ on his behalf, not only agreeing to its agreeableness...but convinced in deepest part of its necessity...for the chiefest of sinners.
 
Well said, and thank you for the response.

If I correctly also follow the arc of LilDrummer Boys ministry/postings...he has (if I recall correctly) sensed a calling to what is/are commonly called "Red Necks" and not unwilling to find identity among them. (Perhaps reminiscent of "to the Jews I became as a Jew"). He is not ashamed to extol some of those benefits they embrace in their identity (so as not to be an offense to them)...that (according to the understanding he has of his ministry) he might "win some".

Just as perhaps Paul would not enter a synagogue and first say "hey the law is all ultimately useless to us except as a shadow"...but rather use it to help guide toward the benefit of Christ being the very (superior) embodiment of every good gift ever given by God. To see a superseding...even appointed. (See that shadow? Now follow it to the substance that cast it!)

And I agree so whole heartedly with you as to conviction and what then becomes flow from personal experience how that a coloring of ministry is complicated by:



(Which as I write this I have just read his post in regards to his rock albums)

The ministry of meat in due season is all but impossible except for faith, I am convinced.

And, if I continue to take you correctly, ministry (such as it may be called) can even be injurious (for it is not true ministry) if one is merely going about to impose their own convictions against the liberty of Christ.

And though we may not immediately recognize any...or everyone who has undergone the true ministry of Christ toward our own efforts at ministry (we could call it chastening or reproval) we might agree (?) it is a real thing.

But I can't even lay that upon anyone...all I can say is there is a place where Christ can show a man "You ain't doin' nothing but serving your own self in what you think is ministry by my Spirit". One has to measure...and one may find repentance too wonderful a gift there. But a most welcome gift there. (Oh, Lord, I been handing out hand grenades as bread! and encouraging an eating!)

The things a man identifies himself by, and/or might be drawn into...well...I ain't found LDB lacking in disclosure. This don't make him anything at all of itself, except that he's plain he's writing/talking often to what he addresses as Red Necks (for Jesus), and if I (or any man) find him either a help...or no help at all, it could just as easily be that I am reading someone elses mail (Do I consider myself a red neck?) as it could be a right judgment upon a, or his, ministry.

And that's specifically what I meant when saying a man who is "found" teaching (by our own appraisal) may not be saying "I am a teacher to all". How much more when a man says "I am in this case sent to the Red Necks".

(And who of us can say "but there ain't no red necks here"? we never know who's watching even were we to find some agreement that "none of us are"...but this could be where we get flushed out by the wise..."why then do you read the mail I have prepared for them?") For if one admits they are "not a red neck"...how would they know the language that might be prepared for them?

Oh, but this way is all but impossible for a man to navigate alone!

This bit of wisdom from you is, to me, superbly embraceable.



It could be there's a lifetime of mining that to see whether it truly is...true?

Is a man condoning what he refuses to condemn?

Lack of condemnation might indeed...somewhere along the way, be shown to be the signal indicator of what a man "condones" in his own heart...the death of Christ on his behalf, not only agreeing to its agreeableness...but convinced in deepest part of its necessity...for the chiefest of sinners.
When a man is sent, or a preacher preaches that which God has gave him. Wisdom prevails and from what I’ve seen, there is correction, reproval, etc., without condemnation nor condoning. Ultimately, that is “ministering” and leads to conviction.
 
Thread starter #48
When the Lord is speaking through his servants, including me, there is often a "he who has ears to hear, let him hear" aspect to the message. God's words do not fail to accomplish the purpose for which they are sent.

It is often the case that some who do not have ears to hear set their crosshairs on the messenger.

I am surprised that most of the criticism for the video in the original post is aimed at my refusal to go beyond Scripture itself and categorize all drinking of alcohol as a sin or moral failure. I guess I expected more objections along the lines of "Who are you to suggest I'm drinking too much?" or "My drinking is none of your business." Some have ears to hear.
 
When the Lord is speaking through his servants, including me, there is often a "he who has ears to hear, let him hear" aspect to the message. God's words do not fail to accomplish the purpose for which they are sent.

It is often the case that some who do not have ears to hear set their crosshairs on the messenger.

I am surprised that most of the criticism for the video in the original post is aimed at my refusal to go beyond Scripture itself and categorize all drinking of alcohol as a sin or moral failure. I guess I expected more objections along the lines of "Who are you to suggest I'm drinking too much?" or "My drinking is none of your business." Some have ears to hear.
To those that have ears your words are recognized as what they are. To those who don't and are lost and are looking for guidance, they may very well be a path to the grave. It is what it is. I don't have to answer for them. Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, but so is foolishness. God is the final judge. Speaking for God is perhaps the most solemn undertaking one can assume. The gravity of that should not be lost on anyone.

One final note and I'm done with this subject. It is this. In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication. Contrast that to the context in which you framed it: social drinking. The two are not the same, especially given how today's society defines social drinking. That is all.
 
Last edited:
I place no more confidence in my abstinence... than I do in my excess.
How quaint, poetic, and spiritually mature sounding. Which one will destroy you and everyone around you, your abstinence or your excess?
 
Hard to believe all those vineyards, and scriptural reference to vineyards and wine if it was only consumed at a wedding, communion, or for medication.

Israel as a vine, Jesus as the true vine, etc. I can't see scripture using that many metaphors for something only used for a wedding, communion, and as a medication.

I grew up in a Baptist Church and ironic we didn't use wine for communion, we were still taught that it was real alcoholic wine,(how could it not be) and that they drunk it every day with meals like we do Ice Tea.
 
I wonder if wine is like the Tree of Knowledge. A sort of good and bad type thing. Come to think of it a lot of things are like that. Sex for instance. Weapons? Food? Money? Free Will?

Look at some of the terrible things wine caused. Maybe Adam's sin? Noah for sure. Lots of other examples.

Judges 9:13
But the grapevine also refused, saying, ‘Should I quit producing the wine that cheers both God and people, just to wave back and forth over the trees?’

Wine cheers God, It has great powers, it was a part of sacrifices and ceremonies. Wine is good.

It's a blessing and a curse. It's an enigma!
 
To those that have ears your words are recognized as what they are. To those who don't and are lost and are looking for guidance, they may very well be a path to the grave. It is what it is. I don't have to answer for them. Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds, but so is foolishness. God is the final judge. Speaking for God is perhaps the most solemn undertaking one can assume. The gravity of that should not be lost on anyone.

One final note and I'm done with this subject. It is this. In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication. Contrast that to the context in which you framed it: social drinking. The two are not the same, especially given how today's society defines social drinking. That is all.
It might be easier if you could provide the scriptures that forbid the use of alcohol. Not those where it “might be” alcohol because it might be many other things as well. Like the one concerning “harming the body” this fella warned me about while he was eating the skin from fried greasy chicken........but then I thought about how harmful the 3 refills of Mountain Dew, sugar, carbs, and the greasy skin fat this fella was having for lunch must be. So I questioned him with - I know the Bible speaks against drunkenness and gluttony. So, what’s the difference in that 4 piece chicken with mashed potatoes, beans and bread that can lead to gluttony and 3 beers that can lead to drunkenness?

Or, the one where I can’t be a stumbling block? I heard that one yesterday from a guy eating Reese’s and he knows that I love those things and knew that I’m cutting carbs for the winter. But he’s like chomping down and grinning and rubbing it in my face about how good they are. I knew where he stood on alcohol so I asked him if he wanted a beer and he said I needed to repent.

And I’m not a drinker so I’m not looking to justify anything - socially / or in moderation. Just wanting to know the basis used to separate the “sin” of alcohol from the many other things that harm the body that can lead to other “sin”.

I want to hear someone preach about taters, greasy fat and sugar as well. Fixed it for Israel.

Am I asking too much??
 
Last edited:
It might be easier if you could provide the scriptures that forbid the use of alcohol. Not those where it “might be” alcohol because it might be many other things as well. Like the one concerning “harming the body” this fella warned me about while he was eating the skin from fried greasy chicken........but then I thought about how harmful the 3 refills of Mountain Dew, sugar, carbs, and the greasy skin fat this fella was having for lunch must be. So I questioned him with - I know the Bible speaks against drunkenness and gluttony. So, what’s the difference in that 4 piece chicken with mashed potatoes, beans and bread that can lead to gluttony and 3 beers that can lead to drunkenness?

Or, the one where I can’t be a stumbling block? I heard that one yesterday from a guy eating Reese’s and he knows that I love those things and knew that I’m cutting carbs for the winter. But he’s like chomping down and grinning and rubbing it in my face about how good they are. I knew where he stood on alcohol so I asked him if he wanted a beer and he said I needed to repent.

And I’m not a drinker so I’m not looking to justify anything - socially / or in moderation. Just wanting to know the basis used to separate the “sin” of alcohol from the many other things that harm the body that can lead to other “sin”.

I want to hear someone preach about too many taters, greasy fat and too much sugar as well.

Am I asking too much??
OK...too many taters, greasy fat and too much sugar is, by the definition of too much..."too much!"

But I don't know if you are asking what "too much" is anymore than I know what "too much" taters looks like...except if there can be "too much" then what is too much...is.

So, yeah...I'm a lousy preacher. Is hoping for grace for that...too much?
 
OK...too many taters, greasy fat and too much sugar is, by the definition of too much..."too much!"

But I don't know if you are asking what "too much" is anymore than I know what "too much" taters looks like...except if there can be "too much" then what is too much...is.

So, yeah...I'm a lousy preacher. Is hoping for grace for that...too much?
Too much is the key lol 😂 but what is it. And I fixed it for you lol
 
Thread starter #58
I want to hear someone preach about taters, greasy fat and sugar as well. Fixed it for Israel.

Am I asking too much??
Not at all. I just posted a video on "Are you eating too much?" in its own thread. Interesting that the Apostle Paul could say to the Ephesian elders that he had proclaimed to them "the whole counsel of God." But in the 21st century church, the sin of gluttony is rarely mentioned. Even though the New Testament discusses gluttony about as often as drunkenness.

One wonders if those who are so quick to proclaim drinking and smoking as sins give evidence of excess in the area of food - obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems related to excess food. In the last 20 years, I've seen excess food destroy more lives than too much alcohol.

For most Americans, obesity is a choice. Type 2 diabetes is a choice. Heart disease and high blood pressure are choices. All these choices are closely related to eating too much.
 
Thread starter #59
One final note and I'm done with this subject. It is this. In each and every instance in the NT in which wine was mentioned it was either in a context of limited portion, limited occasion, or both: a wedding, communion, as a medication.
Exceptions you failed to note:

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ 35 But wisdom is proved right by all her children.”

Rev 5:6 “Two pounds of wheat for a day’s wages, and six pounds of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!”

1 Tim 3:8 "In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain."

Titus 2:3 "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."
 
Maybe they only used oil for special occasions such as lamps, feet, anointment, etc.
Again though it doesn't seem like it would be very symbolic if it wasn't "very" important. It may have been equally used and important as wine was on a daily basis.

The olive tree, root, and branches plays a part in Paul's imagery in Romans 11. They must could somehow identify with olive trees.
 
Top