The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SandmanTF131
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

the bible does not condone drinking alcohol for recreational purposes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
SandmanTF131
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 55044
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

while Jesus drank wine, and there's other similar passages, wine had a different role back in those days. it was about the liquid being sanitary, cause the water often wasn't. w
SandmanTF131

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for issuing this debate, I am sure it will be an interesting one.

My opponent claims that since wine was ONLY drunk because the water was oftentimes unsanitary, then every other passage in the bible referring to drinking is irrelevant. Notice I emphasized ONLY in a sarcastic fashion. While this was a reason people in biblical times drank wine, this was not the only one; people still drank wine to get a buzz, like we do today. While it was not nearly as potent as it is today, wine still had alcohol in it.

Also, there are many, MANY verses in the Holy Bible that refer to drinking; here are but a few.

"Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do."
Ecclesiastes 9:7

"14 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock
and plants for man to cultivate,
that he may bring forth food from the earth
15 and wine to gladden the heart of man,
moil to make his face shine
and bread to strengthen man"s heart."
Psalm 104:14"15

What God commands Christians regarding alcohol is to avoid drunkenness. "18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18) The Bible condemns drunkenness and its effects. Christians are also commanded to not allow their bodies to be "mastered" by anything "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything." (1 Corinthians 6:12) They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. (2 Peter 2:19).

Drinking alcohol in excess is undeniably addictive. Scripture also forbids a Christian from doing anything that might offend other Christians or encourage them to sin against their conscience.

"But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol"s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:9-13).

In light of these principles, it would be extremely difficult for any Christian to say he is drinking alcohol in excess to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Again, Scripture does not forbid Christians from drinking beer, wine, or any other drink containing alcohol. Alcohol is not, in and of itself, tainted by sin. It is drunkenness and addiction to alcohol that a Christian must absolutely refrain from.

Alcohol, consumed in small quantities, is neither harmful nor addictive. In fact, some doctors advocate drinking small amounts of red wine for its health benefits, especially for the heart. Consumption of small quantities of alcohol is a matter of Christian freedom. Drunkenness and addiction are sin. However, due to the biblical concerns regarding alcohol and its effects, due to the easy temptation to consume alcohol in excess, and due to the possibility of causing offense and/or stumbling of others, it is often best for a Christian to abstain from drinking alcohol. This does NOT, however, mean that the bible does not allow it.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

your verses in support of drinking do not say it's okay to drink if the water is sanitary. it merely say it can make one's heart merry and to drink it with gladdness.

i never said the bible doesn;t allow for drinking alcohol.

it forbids drunkenness, but it doesn't mean it doesn't extend to not drinking alcohol if the water is clean.

[for some reason i feel compelled to say i dont really believe what i'm arguing, playing devil's advocate. but i do know others who argue this to me, and i'm looking for decent responses.
SandmanTF131

Con

My opponent claims that the verses I proposed as evidence are invalid, because they do not say it is okay to drink alcohol if the water is sanitary enough to drink. The verses also do not address if it is okay to drink whenever you have died your hair red and are in the middle of a native american tribal dance. You know what these two statements have in common? Both are completely unrelated to the question of "Does the Bible permit the consumption of alcohol". Sure the water may have been a bit unsanitary in bible times, but no the bible did not ONLY allow the consumption of wine because of this lack of sanitation.

My opponent then claims, "I never said the bible doesn;t allow for drinking alcohol"
Besides the terrible grammar in the statement, there is another critical flaw here. Is not this what the debate is about? My opponent is arguing pro, so he should be arguing from the standpoint that the bible does not allow the consumption of alcohol.

My opponents entire argument seems to be the "We cant drink alcohol if the water is clean" claim. Again, the water being clean has little, if anything, to do with the consumption of alcohol. My opponent cannot simply refute the verses as insufficient because of something she THINKS is connected, without offering evidence as to HOW they are connected.

My opponent finally says, "[for some reason i feel compelled to say i dont really believe what i'm arguing, playing devil's advocate. but i do know others who argue this to me, and i'm looking for decent responses."
This is the kicker. My opponent herself just said she does not believe what she is arguing. If she does not even know why she is arguing her side or how to argue it, how can she expect you, the voters, and I to do so? I could consider this my opponents forfeiture of the argument, but I doubt that was its intention.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i do not have to debate that the bible forbids the consumption of alcohol. just that it's not clear enough that it's okay to drink when the water is sanitary.

those verses do not say drinking is a good thing, all we can deduce was that it was permissible.
SandmanTF131

Con

My opponent states "i do not have to debate that the bible forbids the consumption of alcohol. just that it's not clear enough that it's okay to drink when the water is sanitary." It is odd, though, my opponent took the pro side to a debate then claims she does not have to debate it. This is the THIRD time she has used the sanitary water argument, and I have refuted it twice before. This is repetitive, and to me seems like a filler for having no other arguments to provide. My opponent then says "those verses do not say drinking is a good thing, all we can deduce was that it was permissible." The verses say "and wine to gladden the heart of man", and "drink your wine with a merry heart." Those sound like the descriptions of a good thing to me, and if you split apart the definitions of these words, you will see it is almost irrefutable these verses talk about alcohol in a less than negative light.

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent has, again and again, offered lazy arguments in the form of about 3 sentences a piece. She used the same exact argument all 3 rounds, even though I successfully refuted it, and offered no viable refutation of my arguments. Most importantly, she herself admitted " I don't really believe what i'm arguing" and if that isn't the deciding factor then I don't know what is. As I said before, if my opponent admits to not believing her own claim, then how does she expect us to? Thank you for your time, and I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cSandmanTF131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con doesn't prove "for recreational purposes", but Pro did terribly.
Vote Placed by Cutiepuffle 3 years ago
Cutiepuffle
dairygirl4u2cSandmanTF131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did so horribly that Con easily won.