Nazaroo
New member
Bullets don't kill people, atheists do. :chew:
Atheists who burn in hell afterward. I can't wait to see you there on Judgement Day.
Drug Dealing and the Bible
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
Bullets don't kill people, atheists do. :chew:
Atheists who burn in hell afterward. I can't wait to see you there on Judgement Day.
False assumption. I don't sell alcohol or any drug. In fact, I don't sell anything.
How's that? Paul, who shaved his head in Acts 18:18 and had a company of 4 men shave their heads in Acts 21:24, turned out alright? When and how did that happen, because I thought you said that getting a haircut was a Roman practice, and that we are not to "imitate sinful heathen practices, even in jest" (your words). And didn't Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that it is shameful for a man to have long hair?
I object to your insinuation that I am a fool on this basis. Insults and baseless contradictions are resorted to only by those who know that they are loosing in debate but refuse to admit it.
Let's reconsider Jesus' words in the gospel of Matthew:
"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."
If you are able, try to put aside for a moment the shock you must feel at the thought of people drinking such an unholy substance as "oinos" in heaven, and consider the wording of this passage. Jesus said, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until..." Jesus used the word "henceforth", which means, "from this point on". This means that prior to that pronouncement, Jesus had been drinking "oinos" with his disciples. The word "henceforth" requires a separation of what came before with what will come after, until a third event takes place (namely, drinking it anew with them in his Father's kingdom). If Jesus had not been drinking "oinos" with disciples, there would have been no reason for him to use that word.
Last edited:
This sort of rhetoric isn't healthy for you or anyone else. You don't even allow for the possibility that Gerald may convert and be saved with that comment. You're simply consigning someone to hell and then telling him that you are looking forward to seeing it happen. How vulgar. And what's that I see you've claimed for your motto?
Slogan/motto:
Any fool can kill a man. How many have you saved?
Any fool can kill a man. How many have you saved?
Are you sure that motto wasn't put there by mistake?
Last edited:
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Hmmm, I seem to have missed that particular memo.
If I've ever killed somebody, or through inaction caused somebody to die, I'm sure I'd remember.
:yawn:
Don't you need to go comb your beard or something, Nazarube?
Gerald
Resident Fiend
That's the last refuge of someone who doesn't have the guts to do the deed personally: "I lack the fortitude to dispatch your reprobate carcass to perdition myself, so I'll just wait for God to actually do what I can only fantasize about!"
Naz is good at that, as I'm sure you've noticed... :chuckle:
He's just expressing more wishful thinking.
This thread reminded me Clerks 2.
Because Jay and Silent Bob read the Bible and still sold drugs.
I think I'm going to watch it again when I get off work in the morning. Great movie.
Because Jay and Silent Bob read the Bible and still sold drugs.
I think I'm going to watch it again when I get off work in the morning. Great movie.
Nazaroo
New member
Obviously the subtlety of my figure of speech eluded you.
You're selling alcohol right now, by telling people its okay, even God-approved, when it isn't. Its an industrial solvent and systemic poison.
Paul didn't just get a haircut, as I'm sure you're aware: He went into the temple to have the priest do this, so that the hair could be burnt on the altar. This act signifies either the start, or the end, or the renewal of a Nazarite vow, as I'm sure you are aware.
Going to a Roman barbershop is nothing of the kind, and is a heathen practice classed as an abomination in the Torah.
No. The Romans said that. From the obvious internal evidence, 1st Corinthians is actually 2nd Corinthians (1st Cor. 5:9 etc.), and has been rewritten by the collector of Paul's letters: that would be the Roman church.
Again, you need to read the word carefully and know it better.
Sure lets consider it: Oh look, the word "henceforth" isn't in the Greek, nor is it implied:
"Πιετε εξ αυτου παντες.
...λεγω δε υμιν οτι
ου μη πιω απ αρτι εκ τουτου γεννηματος της αμπελου,
εως της ημερας εκεινης οταν αυτο πινω μεθ' υμων καινον
εν τη βασιλεια του Πατρος μου."
"YOU drink out of it, all of you!....
...But I say to you that
By no means will Idrink, from this very moment out of this, generated from the vine,
[not generated from fermentation,]
until that day, when I will drink it with you anew
in the Kingdom of My Father." (Matt. 26:27b-29!)
Again you tried to chop the speech in half, leaving the first half out, and misleading all the readers of your quotation!...λεγω δε υμιν οτι
ου μη πιω απ αρτι εκ τουτου γεννηματος της αμπελου,
εως της ημερας εκεινης οταν αυτο πινω μεθ' υμων καινον
εν τη βασιλεια του Πατρος μου."
"YOU drink out of it, all of you!....
...But I say to you that
By no means will Idrink, from this very moment out of this, generated from the vine,
[not generated from fermentation,]
until that day, when I will drink it with you anew
in the Kingdom of My Father." (Matt. 26:27b-29!)
Jesus' word begins in the last half of Matt.26:27.
With both halves of Jesus' saying together, and coordinated by the "δε" (" - but..."), His speech makes perfect sense. He picks up the cup as High Priest, which contains symbolically His own blood, and of course HE doesn't drink it! He gives it to His disciples.
As He has done so many times before in His public ministry, here Jesus AMPLIFIES something formerly ordinary, something from the O.T., the Torah (the Passover Cup), and totally changes its meaning, then at the same time takes the Nazarite Vow of Holiness, and AMPLIFIES THAT TOO, beyond all lame norms: "until the Kingdom of My Father comes!"
Thats His vow! He doesn't pause to finish off a bottle of wine between His previous vow and the next. He rushes right to the finish, by starting a vow so heavy, so huge, so "impossible", that it can hardly be less than astounding.
For everyone knows, 'you make a vow, you keep it, pal!'
Nor would the mocking of Jesus by shoving 'oinos' in his face on a sponge, and His refusing to drink it mean anything, until this VOW was accomplished.
"oinos" isn't unholy, unless it is fermented into alcohol.
Thats why all yeast must be completely removed even from the home for 8 days during the eating of unleavened bread.
The only shock I'm feeling, is at your ineptness at handling the Holy Scriptures, and your incomprehension of what a logical syllogism requires.
This means nothing of the kind, until you try to give that impression by leaving out half the speech.
Wrong again. If I go to the temple to renew a vow, I am not required to drink wine when one vow ends and another begins. Even you must concede that wine drinking is voluntary. The Law doesn't require it when renewing a vow.
There is one obvious reason why Jesus and friends WOULD use that word (oinos). Its part of the Passover ritual and tradition. The passover ritual does not REQUIRE anyone to drink oinos, or wine, or grape-juice either. ANY lifelong Nazarite (such as Samson or John Baptist for instance) would not be required to drink grapejuice, let alone wine, even though it was permitted to ordinary Israelites during the passover.
Passover does not make oinos mandatory, but it does provide a context for using the word, and an opportunity for Jesus to hijack a symbol.
Nazaroo
New member
Let me help:
Christians don't kill people, because they know its futile. God can just resurrect them. Only an atheist would believe he had the power to kill someone permanently and so get rid of them.
A Christian who did kill someone would be having a "lack of faith" moment.
Sadly, I doubt it, especially if you killed someone by ineptitude or ignorance, or through incomprehension of the later consequences of your actions. Thats the basis of all industrial accidents, and negligent manslaughter.
On the other hand, if you watched a blind man walking off a cliff and did nothing, you would remember it. Because that is murder.
Many other indirect actions however are also murder, homicide through carelessness.
On Judgement Day, I'm sure God will play back the video for you, so you can trace all the significant consequences of your own actions, that may have skipped your notice.
peace
Nazaroo
You are being absurd. We are talking about wine here, not pure alcohol. Wine is neither an "industrial solvent" nor is it a "systemic poison". Furthermore, even by "the subtlety of your figure of speech", I am not "selling alcohol". I am simply presenting the balanced scriptural and medical viewpoint on wine consumption, both the good and the bad. Nothing I have posted can serve to justify the excessive use of wine, beer, or any other fermented drink--quite the contrary.
I don't have to concede that "wine drinking is voluntary" because I never suggested that it was involuntary, and I don't know what would make you think I ever did or ever would suggest that.
1 Corinthians is not 2 Corinthians. Paul is known to have written several epistles that are no longer extant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Lost_Pauline_Epistles
And here is where any hope of reasoning with you becomes impossible. I have read your posts on this thread, as well as the thread on another forum that you linked to in your first post, and I find that whenever you are presented with a scripture that undeniably contradicts your beliefs, you will simply rewrite or misinterpret that scripture until it does conform with your beliefs, or you may even simply reject it all together. For example, I have seen you cast aspersions on the gospel of Matthew or portions thereof, the book of Numbers or portions thereof, and now you are doing the same with Paul's letters to the Corinthians. I don't mean to sound too harsh, but I find you to be frankly dishonest in that regard.
One of the reasons why I choose to continue dialoging with you is because I find this topic to be very interesting, educational, and even enjoyable. Another reason is that I find your position on medicine in general to be partially erroneous and potentially dangerous to other readers. Therefore, I have continued posting in order to show other readers that there are valid viewpoints which differ from your own.
Last edited:
In response to my claim that the Locrians (a tribe of ancient Greece) had a law against drinking wine undiluted with water unless prescribed by a doctor, the penalty for which was death, Nazaroo wrote:
The Locrians did indeed have laws against drinking fermented wine unless it was either diluted with water or prescribed full-strength by a doctor. Perhaps you wish to balk at this because it sounds too draconian to be true, but where do you think the term "draconian" came from in the first place? It came from the name of a Greek lawmaker from the city of Athens called Draco:
And Draco wasn't the only harsh lawgiver in Greece. Roughly contemporaneous with Draco was the lawgiver named Zaleucus, whose laws were followed for several centuries after his death. (He executed himself for breaking one of his own laws.) One of his laws called for the death penalty to anyone who drank undiluted wine unless they had a doctor's prescription to do so. Don't believe me? Look into it for yourself. Here are a couple of links to help you on your way:
http://www.locriantica.it/english/figures/zaleukos.htm
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/YAK_ZYM/ZALEUCUS.html
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that the ancient Greek attitude towards wine-drinking was similar to the view held by the ancient Hebrews, but that isn't quite correct. Contrast Zaleucus' law with the Bible. Where in the legal code of the Bible is the death penalty issued for drinking undiluted fermented wine? Yes, excessive undiluted fermented wine drinking is cautioned against, it is certainly said to be unwise, and in the New Testament hell in the afterlife is listed as a consequence, but nowhere in the Bible is it listed as a "crime" per se to drink fermented wine, or even to get drunk--unless you are a priest about to minister in the tabernacle.
We all know by now that these assertions of yours are false, but just to prove my point even further (as if it hasn't been proven sufficiently already), the book of Sirach was written contemporaneously with the books of the Maccabees, and here is what Ben Sira had to write about wine-drinking:
Source: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach31.htm
The above passage speaks very clearly and undeniably, so there can be no quibbling on your part about whether Ben Sira was referring to unfermented grape juice instead of fermented wine.
Face it, Nazaroo, your strict prohibitionist position has more in common with the pagan Greek lawgivers than it does with the Hebrews.
The Locrians did indeed have laws against drinking fermented wine unless it was either diluted with water or prescribed full-strength by a doctor. Perhaps you wish to balk at this because it sounds too draconian to be true, but where do you think the term "draconian" came from in the first place? It came from the name of a Greek lawmaker from the city of Athens called Draco:
Draco: Athenian lawgiver whose harsh legal code punished both trivial and serious crimes in Athens with death--hence the continued use of the word draconian to describe repressive legal measures. (Source: http://history-world.org/draco_and_solon_laws.htm )
And Draco wasn't the only harsh lawgiver in Greece. Roughly contemporaneous with Draco was the lawgiver named Zaleucus, whose laws were followed for several centuries after his death. (He executed himself for breaking one of his own laws.) One of his laws called for the death penalty to anyone who drank undiluted wine unless they had a doctor's prescription to do so. Don't believe me? Look into it for yourself. Here are a couple of links to help you on your way:
http://www.locriantica.it/english/figures/zaleukos.htm
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/YAK_ZYM/ZALEUCUS.html
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that the ancient Greek attitude towards wine-drinking was similar to the view held by the ancient Hebrews, but that isn't quite correct. Contrast Zaleucus' law with the Bible. Where in the legal code of the Bible is the death penalty issued for drinking undiluted fermented wine? Yes, excessive undiluted fermented wine drinking is cautioned against, it is certainly said to be unwise, and in the New Testament hell in the afterlife is listed as a consequence, but nowhere in the Bible is it listed as a "crime" per se to drink fermented wine, or even to get drunk--unless you are a priest about to minister in the tabernacle.
We all know by now that these assertions of yours are false, but just to prove my point even further (as if it hasn't been proven sufficiently already), the book of Sirach was written contemporaneously with the books of the Maccabees, and here is what Ben Sira had to write about wine-drinking:
Sirach 31:27-31
27 Wine is as good as life to a man, if it be drunk moderately: what is life then to a man that is without wine? for it was made to make men glad.
28 Wine measurably drunk and in season brings gladness of the heart, and cheerfulness of the mind:
29 But wine drunken with excess makes bitterness of the mind, with brawling and quarreling.
30 Drunkenness increases the rage of a fool till he offend: it diminishes strength, and makes wounds.
31 Rebuke not your neighbor when wine is served, nor put him to shame while he is merry; Use no harsh words with him and distress him not in the presence of others.
27 Wine is as good as life to a man, if it be drunk moderately: what is life then to a man that is without wine? for it was made to make men glad.
28 Wine measurably drunk and in season brings gladness of the heart, and cheerfulness of the mind:
29 But wine drunken with excess makes bitterness of the mind, with brawling and quarreling.
30 Drunkenness increases the rage of a fool till he offend: it diminishes strength, and makes wounds.
31 Rebuke not your neighbor when wine is served, nor put him to shame while he is merry; Use no harsh words with him and distress him not in the presence of others.
Source: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach31.htm
The above passage speaks very clearly and undeniably, so there can be no quibbling on your part about whether Ben Sira was referring to unfermented grape juice instead of fermented wine.
Face it, Nazaroo, your strict prohibitionist position has more in common with the pagan Greek lawgivers than it does with the Hebrews.
Nazaroo
New member
No amount of quibbling will change the fact that modern wine is packaged and sold as a recreational drug.
The majority of North American purchasers of wine, beer and liquor do so to get high and drunk.
The number of "wine connoisseurs " who buy it to sip with an expensive gourmet dinner is probably less than 1% of the market. For one thing, most people simply aren't wealthy
connoisseurs. They're working class people who want to party and get high after work and on weekends, if they even have a job.
By promoting the continued use of alcohol in all its popular forms, such as modern wine and beer, and liquor, you are indeed aiding and abbetting drug dealers.
Accept your sin, and drink up.
This is certainly true. But this makes you the most dangerous and hideous drug dealer/promoter of all. The kind that is not easily identified, but one that perpetuates an evil whose damage to the community is overwhelming and immeasurable.
Thanks for admitting what I pointed out before you did. Since you are now trying to take credit for my point, you are right; your lack of honesty makes reasoning with you almost impossible.
These documents are simply what they are historically. I recognize their authority, where it is due, and recognize tampering where that has occurred.
Anyone looking at the Synoptic Problem must acknowledge the literary dependence between them and the priority of Mark, if they are sensible.
Glad you admit you are enjoying yourself. Others have offered different pretensions.
If so, you have failed your readers utterly. You haven't posted anything which corrects any "erroneous view" of medicine.
In fact, I haven't posted such: Instead I gave GOOD advice in the medical sphere, namely, Don't apply prescriptions meant for someone else's condition to yourself. They aren't transferable.
How that translates into "bad medical advice" I'll never know.
peace
Nazaroo
Last edited:
Nazaroo
New member
Nobody is disputing that draconian lawgivers existed in Greece. Even under Alexander, it was a military dictatorship after all. Lawgivers are by very definition draconian.
None of these anachronistic and misplaced counter-examples contradict the Great War between the Greeks and the Hebrews over the great laxity of the Greek occupying armies and their abominable heathen practices, including excessive drinking, whoring, sporting, and eating unclean garbage.
In short, the Greeks of Alexander's army were pigs. You are what you eat.
And no amount of posturing can cover up the huge violent guerrilla war between the Greeks and Hebrews over this issue.
Your claim that the Greeks and Hebrews held similar views on wine is absurd, and based on a misuse of the historical evidence, and suppression of the whole history of Alexander.
It is certainly true that the picture presented in the O.T. is unfocussed, and at times unclear and confused.
This is just what we would expect the case to be before modern scientific and medical investigation of drug addiction and drug culture.
At times the Bible does speak out against the more obvious excesses in recreational drug abuse. But we should not expect the Biblical writers to be fully cognisant of the insidiousness of drug addiction and its devastating impact upon the family unit and the community.
We have no such excuse now. The fact that alcohol is a devastating, crippling, addictive recreational drug is well known.
We don't need the Bible to affirm this, and we can't expect the Bible to have this modern insight, but its testimony is nonetheless clear enough about obvious cases of recreational drug abuse and addiction, and its consequences.
This is incredible. Ben Sira is of course rejected by all modern Protestantism as worthless, and full of superstition.
But also, it dates from long AFTER Jesus, and comes from Egypt, where beer-making was invented, and slavery was an institution.
It is also well-known that Ben Sira was not a Biblical O.T. Israelite, but a "modern" Jewish philospher heavily influenced by the Greeks, the very people that the Palestinian Hebrews were at WAR with.
Had any of the Maccabees heard the teachings of Ben Sira and other HELLENIZED Egyptian "Jews", they would have stoned them to death as heretics.
Ben Sira and the book of 1st Maccabees have nothing in common: completely different ages, geographical locations, people, cultures, and religions.
I heartily assent to the death penalty for drug-dealing.
That includes those who corrupt our culture and community by promoting recreational alcohol use, like yourself.
peace
Nazaroo
Gerald
Resident Fiend
That would actually be quite interesting, given my habit of ignoring people when I'm out and about.
To see what ultimately became of all those I've passed by over the years, without so much as a glance or a word.
You might compare me to the guy in the parable, who buried the talent. :chuckle:
Nazaroo
New member
I think from the above that you would be better matched to the priest and the Levite in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. :chew:
The guy who buried the talent, you may notice from a careful re-read, only had one talent.... :scripto:
Nazaroo
Gerald
Resident Fiend
True enough. I'm very good at "passing by on the other side". Only saints and fools voluntarily avail themselves of other people's problems.
And he got the bum's rush for not being willing to stick his neck out with it, which is pretty unreasonable of his lord.
And if I didn't know better, Naz, I'd think you were taking a cheap shot!
But that's not something an avowed Nazarite would do, so that can't be the case.
If you took a cheap shot, you'd be acting an awful lot like...well...me.
Is that what I'm advocating? No, it isn't. I'm advocating that no one should drink beer or wine if they don't want to. But for those who do, I advocate that they limit their consumption to no more than one or two glasses in a 24 hour period, which is what the best medical evidence recommends as the limit. Anything more than that is both sinful from the biblical perspective and harmful from the medical perspective.
Excuse you? Where on this thread have I promoted "liquor"? Quote for me the text where I have done this.
What is certainly true? That I am simply presenting the balanced scriptural and medical viewpoint on wine consumption? And for that I am "the most dangerous and hideous drug dealer/promoter of all"?
I did not try to take credit for your point. I contradicted your point. You claimed that "1st Corinthians is actually 2nd Corinthians", which is nonsense. Then I pointed out to you that at least several of Paul's letters are not extant, and that it is one of these non-extant letters that Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 5:9. Paul was not referring to Second Corinthians as his first letter to them, as you claimed.
You recognize tampering in the Bible wherever you choose to disagree with the Bible. Your personal opinion is more important to you than what the Bible says. Rather than change your personal opinion to match the Bible, you will change the Bible to match your personal opinion.
"Pretensions", you say? Your choice of words speaks volumes:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pretension
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Nazarube *is* rather full of himself, isn't he...?
Nazarube *is* rather full of himself, isn't he...?
Psst! Remember, Nazaroo is Holy™, so what he says about stuff carries much more weight that anything an ordinary pissant like you or me could ever bring to bear.
[/stage whisper]
Nazarube *is* rather full of himself, isn't he...?
[stage whisper]
Psst! Remember, Nazaroo is Holy™, so what he says about stuff carries much more weight that anything an ordinary pissant like you or me could ever bring to bear.
[/stage whisper]
Nazaroo
New member
This is why its nearly pointless to get into an intellectual battle with an unarmed man.
My point, which to this day has gone over your head, and still shows no signs of sinking in, is this:
In saying that 1st Cor. is actually 2nd Cor., and referencing Paul's mention of a previous letter, the obvious point is that 1st Cor. was not the first letter Paul sent.
Therefore it must be the 2nd at least or possibly even the 3rd 4th or 5th.
Nobody was talking about the traditional "2nd Corinthians", yet another letter, now wrongly known by that name, written by Paul.
It naturally follows that if there was a previous letter (1st Cor.), then not only would 1st Cor. actually be 2nd. Cor., but then obviously 2nd. Cor. would have to be renamed 3rd Cor.
Is it just the heat down there that makes Americans so stupid?
peace
Nazaroo
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Nah, Americans have been stupid from the get-go.
It was beginner's luck that they made themselves a bigger pain than the British thought they were worth.
I take it you're Canadian?
Nazaroo
New member
Now Jamaica is torn by civil war, and will be under Martial Law for the next month.
Why? Because it is a major transport point for drugs destined for North American markets, and is run by Jamaican drug lords.
They have had to call in the army just to arrest drug dealers, who have armed themselves with machine-guns. What kind of drugs? Simply marijuana and cocaine.
Another whole country torn to shreds, the fallout from recreational drug abuse.
peace
Nazaroo
Why? Because it is a major transport point for drugs destined for North American markets, and is run by Jamaican drug lords.
They have had to call in the army just to arrest drug dealers, who have armed themselves with machine-guns. What kind of drugs? Simply marijuana and cocaine.
Another whole country torn to shreds, the fallout from recreational drug abuse.
peace
Nazaroo