English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I think so.

2006-08-25 07:28:00 · 13 answers · asked by King of Babylon 3 in Science & Mathematics Chemistry

13 answers

I disagree with the notion that wine was not then considered the alcoholic beverage that it is in the modern world; else, Paul's observation to "be not drunk with wine, but filled with the Spirit" would be utterly nonsensical.

Moreover, the Bible is rife with examples of drunkenness arising from excessive consumption of "wine." Clearly, to any rational person, wine was then much as it is today: a beverage that, when consumed to excess, is intoxicating.

Although BEER (not "wine") has historically been used as a sterile beverage, I have never encountered any credible text indicating that wine was substituted for water on account of reasons attributable to sterility.

Having so stated, it is not inconceivable that someone, somewhere, at some time in ancient history was faced with the option of drinking either water of questionable purity or wine -- and that such a person, knowing that both wine and beer (when consumed to excess) produce drunkenness, thought perhaps wine also shared the sterile qualities of beer.

Modern "moralists" (throwbacks to the era of "temperance" and prohibition, idolaters of religion and oppressors of mankind) typically attempt to demonize modern wine for its intoxicating effect, and produce the irrational and unsubstantiated arguments witnessed in other responses.

Although the stereotype applies most notably to the modern French, throughout today's europe, people regularly consume wine with one or more of their daily meals -- despite having reliably potable water -- and they aren't commonly drunkards.

I was reared in a strict household, and I've always relied on my wits to help me to deal with the instant crises in my life: drugs have for me never been a temptation. I don't ever want to take anything that's going to impair my ability to appreciate reality, or to timely respond to environmental stimuli.

Having so stated, there were in my high school children who abused marijuana, heroin and other illegal drugs. Those using "hard" drugs had no life (or at least, they had no "life" apart from the drugs: they were completely addicted, and their respective lives were ruined).

I have heard that unscrupulous people sometimes "lace" "hard" drugs into marijuana, so that upon smoking the marijuana, the smoker becomes addicted to the other drug (which is then substituted for the "laced" marijuana);

however, I have known MANY people who claim to have smoked marijuana (although I did not personally witness those events, I have no reason to doubt their respective testimonies), and NONE of them have ever been addicted to marijuana.

I have also known people who have "bottomed out" on certain "hard drugs" (I don't remember exactly which drugs, and I've since lost contact with those people) and been rehabilitated -- but their opportunities in life are virtually insignificant when contrasted against their potential if they had not used those drugs.

Based on what I have observed in the testimonies of credible others, untainted marijuana (a) is not a "stepping-stone" drug, (b) is not addictive [unlike alcohol and unlike tobacco], and (c) produces no long-term psychological effects.

Moreover, the smoke from burning marijuana does not contain the harmful chemical cocktail typical of smoke from tobacco.

Arguably, the world would be a MUCH less violent place if Jesus had converted ALL the tobacco to marijuana.

So, would He? I don't know, but I'd like to think that He would've: short of eliminating smoking altogether, that seems the most civic-minded and responsible thing He could have done.

2006-08-26 18:19:35 · answer #1 · answered by wireflight 4 · 1 0

Ha, ha, ha. I split my sides laughing.

In those days (0th century A.D), for most people, wine was just a normal drink like soda is today (as outlined by "oil field trash"). It sure tasted better than the well/river water that was available then (tap water is one of the miracles of the age we live in). And in normal quantities, wine is not a drug, unlike tobacco and weed. Oh, and tobacco wasn't know in the "Old World" until the early 17th century, when John Rolfe started exporting tons of the stuff from Jamestown. And weed, well.... it's been around for quite a while so never mind that.... but don't forget the general theme of what I said: wine in Jesus's time wasn't a drug.

2006-08-25 09:35:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

When Christ returns the kingdom of God will be external, until that time it exists in the hearts of His followers... Luke 17:20-21 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." Daniel 7:13-14 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

2016-03-27 05:46:07 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No.

I don't think you understand the use of wine in Biblical times. Due to the poor quality of most fresh water, wine was used as the preferred drink because it was more consistently "safe" i.e. it was less likely to cause you to get sick.

They didn't understand about bacteria but they had figured out that when you drank wine you didn't come down with various fevers and other ailments as you might with plain water.

To convert water to wine was an act of providing a "safe" drink for the guests at a wedding celebration and not an act to give folks a lot of wine to get drunk on.

2006-08-25 07:37:36 · answer #4 · answered by oil field trash 7 · 0 1

Jesus would not have turned tobacco into weed as that is not something that anyone could do, including Jesus.

Nor would any sensible person want to.

Drugs are for dummies.

2006-08-25 11:21:22 · answer #5 · answered by Alan Turing 5 · 0 1

I don't know, but if the gospels were written today, Judas would have sold Jesus out not for 30 silver pieces, but for 29.95

2006-08-25 09:00:24 · answer #6 · answered by Aramgutang 1 · 1 0

considering the location the bible was set in, jesus would have been a muslim fanatic preaching against the foreign oppressors of the region. as he was doing during his time as well.
now there's a thought to have a spliff on!!!

2006-08-25 07:35:35 · answer #7 · answered by sofiarose 4 · 0 1

More likely he would turn Pepsi into Coke.

2006-08-25 09:20:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

your a blaspheming piece of moldy garbage. you pathetic heap of trash. I hope that God smites you and your dirty family, you rancid milk.

2006-08-26 02:20:17 · answer #9 · answered by barbaraspice 1 · 0 1

yes

if the tabaco would of run out:)


during the partY:)

2006-08-25 07:34:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers