Talk:Christian views on alcohol

Problem with footnotes?

If you have a problem with the footnote numbering after editing this article, add ?action=purge to the end of the page name in your brower address bar to fix it. (See also this discussion.) --Flex 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansions

I started this article to fulfill the "Alcohol, Drinking of" entry from Wikipedia:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology project, and I've made it public here in its current form in the hopes that others would contribute to it to make it better. --Flex 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how prohibitionists address the fact that Jesus drank wine and also that miracle he made at the wedding when he provided it. This is not intended to be a pun, just curious. --217.130.121.152

That will be addressed in time in the article, I trust. My understanding is that prohibitionists take "wine" to be non-fermented grape juice in that (and other) contexts where the text does not explicitly require alcoholic content. --Flex 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Title

BTW my english is far from perfect but it sounds better to me "christian views on alcohol" that the current one.

I'd like to second this. "Of" may not be incorrect, but it does sound awkward. --MQDuck

As a native speaker of American English, the current title sounds fine (actually a bit better than "on") to my ear. Perhaps it's British vs. American or some other cultural thing? It should be noted that both "of" and "on" are used in existing article titles such as Views of Palestinian statehood, Sunni view of Ali, Christian views on witchcraft, and Political views on the Macedonian language. I've added a redirect as per WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English, and I think the title should remain as-is, though I wouldn't be heartbroken if it didn't. --Flex 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There´s a personal doubt for me. Could anyone tell us how the old Hebrews called grape juice? Just for starting, makes no sense at all turning it into "vine", for the sole reason that without alcohool, this natural conservant, a grape juice woudn´t survive too long. And those ancient people had a strong need of this source of vitamin B.

Mormons

I'm no expert on Christianity, so I won't make any edits on the article myself. However, aren't Mormons strict abolishionists? If so, someone might want to mention them. --MQDuck

I hope we can expand this article to include Mormonism and other groups not yet mentioned. --Flex 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Some would consider the Mormons outside the pale of orthodoxy, but I think it's important to have some mention of their stance.

Also, I'm surpised there is no mention of the Seventh Day Adventists. They are particularily strong teetotalers.

Perhaps there should be a section for the Restorationist church movement (which would include LDS & SDA). --68.116.98.179

Excellent thoughts! Let's get expanding! (FYI, I plan to focus on the "Alcohol in the Bible" section, as time allows.) --Flex 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a very contentious issue to call sects who reject the stipulates of Nicene Creed "Christian" and to not make the distinction is misleading and transference technique. To not stipulate between Nicene creed adherents and non-Nicene creed adherents is to introduce confusion. Self-referencing as "Christian" is far to minimalist of a definition. One might as well confuse Mormon and JW articles by introducing Catholic and Protestant views under a Mormon or JW label. No ecumenical movement of Christians (e.g., the World Council of Churches) in the world accepts non-Nicene Christians as Christians indeed so to include them in an ecyclopedia as such is on shaky ground. If at some point non-Nicene crede adherents who go by "Christian" wish to be included here, it would be completely misleading, confusing, and again transference technique, to not give them a seperate section called something like "Non-Nicene Crede Adherents". Placing the delimiter is an attempt, and I would argue required, to avoid a complex and heated argument! Here is a VERY long and still ongoing one Talk:The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#.22Consider_themselves....22 in case you'd like an example. Also SDAs donot really stemfrom the restorationist movement. CyberAnth 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is pure nonsense (pardon my lack of tact). The Wikipedia article on Christianity begins, "A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as the Christ." No mention there of a Christian being someone who accepts the Nicene Creed.

For the record, Mormonism is not abolitionist per se, in the sense that alcohol ought to be done away with. Rather, members of the Church are expected to avoid all alcohol consumption. If that's what was meant by "abolitionist", then I would agree. Institutionally, alcohol is not considered "evil", merely prohibited for Latter-day Saints living today. Obviously, individual opinions about alcohol still vary widely. 131.107.0.73 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a much broader question than this article can or should deal with. We need to try to find neutral language to deal with it succinctly here. --Flex 01:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the problems is easily solved by reffering to the restorationist movement, rather than a specific church. Wrad 03:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Abstentionism & Some Misc. Points?

I noticed that Baptists were put under this heading. I'm not sure it's completely accurate as the largest US Baptist denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, is a strictly dry denomination. Many Independent Baptists are too. Conversative Baptists do generally fall under this heading though. American Baptists have fairly liberal theology, so I believe would fall under the moderationist.

Also, many Friends (Quakers), Old Order & Conservative Mennonites and Methodists are dry. The Amish only drink a tiny amount of sweet wine as part of wedding celebrations.

I'll have to double check, but I believe the aforementioned Mennonite groups even have a written standard that opposes drinking. --68.116.98.179

I'm entirely in favor of expanding coverage and making the article more accurate. Feel free to do some research and take a whack at it! --Flex 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Protestant (and North-American) point of view of the article

In my opinion, the article is somehow very Protestant-biased, Anglospheric-biased and specially US-Protestant-biased; reading the article gives two strange impressions: that “all Christian sects are against alchool”, or that “Protestantism is the only true form of Christianism” — by the time I’ve read the article, there wasn’t even a wikilink to the Roman Catholic Church, for example --MaGioZal 06:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First, there is indeed a link to the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church and Lutheranism, none of which are Anglospheric in origin or current extent (and only the last is Protestant). Certainly, I'd like to see more international material where applicable, but my research thus far has suggested that the abstentionist/prohibitionist phenomenon is largely a post-Second Great Awakening, American Protestant thing. Nearly everyone else in Christendom (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and even much of American Protestantism) is moderationist.

Second, I can't understand how one could take away from the article that "all Christian sects are against alcohol" since even the intro paragraph makes the opposite clear (emphasis added):

The Christian view of alcohol was nearly universal throughout the first 1800 years of church history: alcohol in its various forms is a gift from God..., but drunkeness is a sin. Around the time of the Second Great Awakening, some Protestant Christians moved from this historical position of allowing moderate use of alcohol.... Today, all three of these positions exist within Christendom, but the historic position is the most common worldwide.

Third, I am positively baffled by your claim that the article gives the impression that "Protestantism is the only true form of Christianism (sic)." What particular statements made you think that? --Flex 12:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there were, and are, Catholic temperance societies. AFAIK, the official church doctrine does not forbid moderate consumption. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.98.179 (talk • contribs).

♠ Having sections specific to colonial America and Prohibition makes the article appear America-centric to some extent. Why not combine events in America within sections about regions or continents?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So far, the bulk of the literature I have found on this topic has been related to America. If you have resources about other countries, please share. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Since this group had its roots in Christianity, it would be good to include some reference to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs).

This is in the works. Thanks! --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholicism

• Permission to use mustum for priests with alcoholism

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs).

Name of article

User:GearedBull recently renamed this article from "Christian views of alcohol" to "Christian view of alcohol" because the opening sentence bolded the latter phrase. However, the article itself is concerned with describing the multiple views, which makes the former more appropriate. Re-reading WP:MOS#Article_titles, I think this page falls under the "descriptive" type of article names, so I will unbold the phrase and rename the page appropriately. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead-in phrase

User:Flex and I (User:GearedBull) have opposite opinions about the lead-in sentence, and use of bold. To clarify I understand not every article need have the identical title in bold in its first sentence. While it is acknowledged that the article calls for a pluralistic title, and that there was some range of opinions in the first 1800 years of Christian history, I believe it justifiable to phrase the lead-in to read:

Christian views of alcohol were nearly universal throughout the first 1800 years of church history: alcohol in its various forms is a gift from God (though one that might be justly declined temporarily or permanently as part of a vow or ascetic regimen), but drunkeness is a sin. During that same period, wine was used in one of the most important rites in the Christian tradition—holy communion.

After several edits, I wonder if others might weigh in? Thanks.CApitol3 04:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The text I would prefer is: "The Christian view of alcohol was nearly universal...." The reasons I prefer it are that it reads more smoothly (not least because of the definite article) and that the view before the 1800s was universal except among tiny, tiny minorities like the Gnostics Cyprian was writing against (cf. Christian_views_of_alcohol#In_the_early_church). Before Welch, grape juice automatically converted to wine after a little time, so wine was the only option for regular communion unless one did not use the "fruit of the vine" at all. Even most ascetics (e.g., monks) still had their beer and wine.

Second, the WP:MOS#Article_titles has this to say about bolding:

If the topic of the article doesn't have a name and the article's title is simply descriptive (like Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware or Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker), it does not need to appear verbatim in the article, and, if it does, should not be bolded.

The title of this article qualifies as descriptive. Therefore, it doesn't need to appear exactly or to be bolded according to the MOS. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer the text/formatting I give above, but until this is resolved, I tweaked GB's intro to read "The Christian views of alcohol were nearly unanimous...." Still sounds awkward to me, but less awkward. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean a bit differently, myself. Bold is not "needed" and I'd remove the title as a verbatim chunk.

To Christians, alcohol consumption has always been a blessing (it is a gift from God) and a curse (it can lead to drunkeness). During the first 1800 years, wine was used in one of the most important rites in the Christian tradition—holy communion. Around the time of the Second Great Awakening, some Protestant Christians moved from this historical position of allowing moderate use of alcohol (sometimes called moderationism) either to deciding it was better not to partake of it (abstentionism) or to prohibiting it outright (prohibitionism). Today, all three of these positions exist within Christendom, but the historic position remains the most common worldwide.

This simplifies the lead sentence a bit and makes it more digestible.

The other thing to keep in mind is that none of us own this article. It will eventually be revised by others. Our "perfect" rendition might not be perceived as that by others.

"Too many articles, too little time..."

Take care,

Larry

Lmcelhiney 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry. I'd suggest that the intro sentence is slightly misleading because of the word "always." It has not been universally considered a blessing since the 1800s. Let's keep massaging here it until we all think it's smooth. For my next try, I'll say (with precisely this formatting):

Throughout the first 1800 years of church history, Christians considered alcoholic beverages to be a gift of God that makes life more joyous but that must be used in moderation to avoid the sin of drunkenness, and they used wine in their central rite – the Eucharist.

The rest is unchanged. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Amendment: I'd change "they" to "these same Christians":

Throughout the first 1800 years of church history, Christians considered alcoholic beverages to be a gift of God that makes life more joyous but that must be used in moderation to avoid the sin of drunkenness, and these same Christians used wine in their central rite – the Eucharist.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this would become easier if we simply rename the article to "Christianity and alcohol" (which parallels Islam and alcohol). Objections? --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly Agree This eliminates some questions by making it more catholic in nature. Lmcelhiney 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Solid! You did a great job with the shift to the new focus. I am pleased to have been involved. Lmcelhiney 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox Church

Because Christ used wine at the last supper, the Eastern Orthodox Church requires the use of wine in the Eucharist. The Orthodox Church has no restrictions on the consumption of alcohol as long as moderation is observed and drunkenness is avoided. There are, however, numerous fixed periods during the year (a total of about 1/3 of the year) when the Church requires its members to abstain from wine, animal products, and olive oil. Most Orthodox include all hard liquor in this fast as well; beer however, is allowed.--Phiddipus 04:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore it may be interesting to mention the legend that when Prince Vladimir of Kiev choose his new religion he picked Christianity over Islam because he couldn't imagine Slavs adhering to a religion that forbade alcohol. Be careful with this story, though. lest it turn into a anti-Slavic joke. Kevlar67 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think many people forget the day and age in which these allowances and restrictions were created. Way-back-when it was not safe to drink water, or rather, you ran a high risk of disease when you drank water because there was no process of decontamination (They didn't even know there were germs anyway). Alcohol, on the other hand, kills germs. Without realizing it, those who drank beer and wine ended up healthier in the end.--Phiddipus 18:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that is a common argument used by abstentionists (but not prohibitionists) on why circumstances have changed today such that alcohol should be considered less acceptable. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, does the Orthodox church allow (or require) mixing the Eucharist wine with water? Is there anything "official" about drinking wine for pleasure? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, during the preporation of the Eucharist the Priest reads the line: they pierced his side (at which he pierces the host with the "spear") and from it flowed blood and water (at which he pours a quantity of both blood and water into the chalice.--Phiddipus 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, just before Communion, the Deacon adds boiling water (Greek: zeon) to the chalice, saying, "The fervour (zeal) of faith, full of the Holy Spirit." MishaPan 06:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Drinking wine as a beverage isn't frowned upon in Eastern Orthodoxy, and perhaps even encouraged. Some well-known Greek wine is produced and bottled by the monks of Mount Athos; since it's the most famous center of Eastern Orthodox monasticism, this is taken as a pretty high endorsement. In addition, it's customary for a visitor to an Eastern Orthodox monastery to be given a shot of tsipouro (a homemade hard liquor) along with a loukoumi to help them recover from their journey. For the most part, though, I think it's considered a non-religious issue. The Church would counsel against excess alcohol use more as an issue of health and character, much as it counsels against, say, someone sitting on a couch eating potato chips all day. --Delirium 09:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's allowed in moderation, and as at least most alcohol is avoided during (most) fasting days, that's sometimes taken as a good opportunity to make sure that drinking alcohol hasn't become an addiction. Of course drunkenness is considered a sin and treated as such. Wesley 17:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Prohibition

I was surprised to not find a summary of prohibition here. At the very least, see also link would be helpful, but I feel that a paragraph or two summarizing the most relevant parts of the prohibition article would be a good addition to this article. What do others thing? Is there a reason that prohibition isn't mentioned except in passing in the 1800s section.-Andrew c 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, Prohibition is rightly only mentioned in passing because the subject of this article is Christianity's relationship with alcohol, which is different and broader topic than the Prohibitionist era -- the temperance movement and Prohibition were more social movements that claimed support from Judeo-Christian heritage. Let me know if you see things differently or just take a swing at the article itself, and we'll see what we can hash out. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GA article

I would like to evaluate this article for the GA status. I have to read the whole article but the first thing I noticed is that the introduction and some parts in other sections are not sourced. Could you please find secondary(i.e. not direct references to the Bible) WP:RS compatible sources for the intro. --Aminz 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The article can benefit from Encyclopedia of Religion, Encyclopedia of Christianity(Oxford University Press), etc etc. Do you have access to a library nearby to check with these academic sources? If not, I can scan them and email them for the editors active in this article. --Aminz 00:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added some two sources to the lede (which was really just summarizing the sourced material that follows). Please specify which other places you think need sources.

I do not have easy access to those encyclopedias. If you are willing to scan them, I will try to make use of them. --Flex (talk|contribs) 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Flex, Thanks for sourcing the intro. I haven't get to read the article carefully yet but I will do that soon as soon as I get more free from real life. I hope we can finish the review of this long article soon.

I have scanned the pages on "wine" from a number of sources. But I can not attach them from the Wikipedia-send-email. There are two option: You (and other interested editors involved in this article) send me an email and I'll attach the scanned pages in my reply; or if you just leave some email address of yours here. Either way works for me. Have a good day, --Aminz 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed you. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll reply you back in an hour (I am going out to eat now :P ) Cheers, --Aminz 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Hebrew section, [2], I can see 7 words for wine in hebrew bible and 3 in NT. The source however mentions 12 names [3]. I think it is my confusion but can you please clear this. Thanks --Aminz 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question: Does the article say anywhere that according to some scholars the story of Jesus making copious wine at the wedding at Cana is only figurative and it didn't actually happen. --Aminz 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, William Montgomery Watt said in an interview:

I don’t think some of the other miracles really happened. For instance, one of the outstanding things was the supposed changing of water into wine at a marriage feast. This is given in the 4th gospel and is said to be the first of the signs of Jesus’ achievement. Clearly, this was meant to be understood symbolically, because making a lot of wine has nothing to do with the Gospel. It was meant to symbolise changing something ordinary into something precious, which is what Jesus had achieved. It was not meant to be taken literally - there was a tremendous amount of wine involved - the equivalent of about 900 bottles - and I don’t think Jesus was an alcoholic.

--Aminz 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you'll note that I removed the {{fact}} that you added about the OT being Hebrew and Aramaic. I did this because this fact is not at all disputed (as one can easily verify in Aramaic language, Old Testament, and the Book of Daniel) and because a reference about every single statement of fact is out of place and overwhelming.

Regarding the number of words for wine in the OT: Easton is noting that there are several words that the KJV and some other older translations improperly render "wine." Compare the translation of the verses that Easton gives for the Hebrew word "Ashishah" (which does not appear in this article) in the KJV and the NIV, NASB, and ESV (cf. also the RSV and NAB, which agree with the modern translations but which I can't easily generate links to). Some older translations render it "flagon of wine" or similar, while all newer ones render it "raisin" or "raisin cake" or similar. In short, I have omitted words that modern scholarship (even that of Easton's day) universally agrees do not refer to wine. I did, however, add shemar, which was previously omitted.

Regarding the wine at Cana, I think Watt's view is by far the minority (cf. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight). Even those who believe the NT is a collection of myths still believe that the author of the fourth gospel intended his account of the wedding to be taken as historical rather than purely symbolic (although certainly all of Jesus' "signs" are also intended as symbolic actions pointing beyond themselves). The reasons for this view are that the author puts the event firmly in historical context (Jn 2:1-2,11) and later refers back to it as an historical event (Jn 4:46). The current wording, I believe, represents a neutral point of view on the matter because it says the Christian Scriptures say Jesus made this wine, not that the miracle actually happened. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Flex, I do NOT dispute the "OT being Hebrew and Aramaic" statement. Just that to a non-expert this is not obvious and it needs to be sourced. To a knowledgable person, it is obvious. But I think the statements in this article should eb verifiable by someone who doesn't know much about the matter.

Also, You are probably 100% right that the source you mentioned is outdated. BUT if that is the case, then that source should be removed. Your arguments show your knowledge on this matter and I'll agree with you on a personal level. On the wikipedia level, we need a new source(secondary) source making these arguments. While I find your arguments convincing, in wikipedia, we really need an scholar who states these facts. On the surface level, what we have now is a "good-faith" misrepresentation of the source. --Aminz 00:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the Hebrew/Aramaic citation: I believe that the existing wikilinks to Old Testament and Aramaic language are sufficient to substantiate and give more information for such a non-controversial, easily verifiable claim. WP:CITE says: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." That is not the case here -- no one disputes that the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, just as no one disputes the NT was written in Koine Greek or that the Vulgate was written in Latin. Requiring that every single non-controversial statement be wikilinked as well as footnoted will lead to a LOT more footnotes than the current 200+, and it ignores the purpose of the wikilinks, which is "to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information" (MoS:L).

Re Easton: I was not saying he was out-dated (quite the contrary; his work is still generally quite accurate and good, save those few spots where recent archeological discoveries have shed some new light on matters). Rather, I said he was discussing how the KJV and other older translations of the Bible were out-dated, and in fact modern scholarship agrees with his assessment on this point 100%. --Flex (talk|contribs) 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Flex, I think we have good faith disagreements. I'll leave the Hebrew/Aramaic sourcing.

I usually don't dare to decisively say that modern scholarship has outdated a source. You might be right but to someone who is not familiar with the subject, it just seems an original research. I could see statement X is referenced to source Y, but they are saying different things. Please provide another source saying the source Y is outdated on these points. I don't know if the fact that some recent translations of the Bible disagree with Easton is sufficient to prove that the "modern scholarship" has rejected Easton. Maybe there are different theories. Why not presenting the basic facts rather than conclusions. Easton says X and more recent translations disagree.

The article says: "Yayin and oinos (which also usually translates yayin and tirosh in the Septuagint) are commonly translated "wine," but the two are rarely and perhaps figuratively or anticipatorily used in the Bible to refer to freshly pressed juice". It is referenced to a primary source. How does it show that these words are rarely and perhaps figuratively or anticipatorily used in the Bible? --Aminz 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

First, a note on formatting: since we're doing a lot of communicating here, I'll suggest that we should adopt convention 2 listed under the indenting bullet of WP:TPG#Layout. That is, you don't indent your text at all, I'll indent all my text once, and if someone else joins the discussion, they can indent twice. Otherwise, our responses will start getting unnecessarily scrunched on the right side of the screen. I've taken the liberty of unindenting your post above.

Re Easton: I think there has been some misunderstanding here. Above you say I have asserted that "the source [I] mentioned [namely, Easton's Bible Dictionary] is outdated," and here you say I have asserted "that some recent translations of the Bible disagree with Easton" and you ask for proof that "'modern scholarship' has rejected Easton." Let me be explicit: I am not saying nor have I said Easton is out-dated (on this point); and I am not saying nor have I said that modern translations of the Bible disagree with Easton; and I am not saying nor have I said that modern scholarship rejects Easton. In fact, I am saying exactly the opposite.

Easton is only contradicting older translations such as the KJV (which was published in 1611). All modern scholarship (in which I am including Easton!) is in agreement on the fact that the KJV mistranslated several relevant words in the OT. The dictionaries and other sources I have cited say that explicitly (cf. also The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon on "Ashishah"), and the modern translations act as implicit lexicons on this matter because they are done by committees of scholars and universally translate these words not as designations for wine. You'll note that I have added "sobhe" and "chomets"/"oxos" but I don't plan to add "ashishah", "'enabh", or "yekebh" from Easton's list since they are not properly translated wine according to the many lexicons and encyclopedias I have consulted.

In short, Easton's Bible Dictionary is in full agreement with modern translations and lexicons about mistranslations in older English versions of the Bible, and therefore the omission of words like "ashishah" from the table of words is justified. Do you agree with this assessment?

Re the poetic use of "wine": I have added my source. Thanks for pointing out the omission. (The Bible citations are the two locations where this poetic construction is allegedly employed.)

BTW, I got the extra sources you sent, and I'll try to go through them all and add references this weekend. Cheers! --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have incorporated your sources (I ended up citing all but the Eerdman's dictionary). FYI, I am currently doing more research on historical aspects. In particular, I'm reading The Teaching of the Early Church on the Use of Wine and Strong Drink by I. W. Raymond. Next on my list is Drinking in America by M. E. Lender, which I have cited in the article but have only read snippets of (see the excerpt that is linked to in the references). --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Flex for your additions. I will put a note on the GA article page indicating that I have reviewed the first part of this article and that it looks good. Cheers and Good Luck. Take Care, --Aminz 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts above and beyond the call of duty, Aminz.

For the reference of other reviewers, Aminz said on the candidates page: "I have reviewed this article up to the section Christianity_and_alcohol#Sacrifices_and_feasts. This article is very well-written and most probably passes the GA criteria." --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I passed this article for GA. If you want it to go further the next thing you should address is the influence of Christian churches to bring about the era of Prohibition in the United States, and then also how did the experience of Prohibition (see as a failure even by those who brought it to bear) affect the attitude of churches to alcohol in its wake. DavidYork71 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Timothy

Many commentaries make mention that Timothy likely totally abstained from alcohol, which gave rise to Paul recommending it for medicinal purposes for his ailments (1Ti 5:23). Perhaps this should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.17.168 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. I'll see what I can do. (BTW, you can sign your posts automatically by putting in ~~~~.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I might be able to dig up some references regarding commentaries. 66.191.19.42 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't turn them down, especially if they came with relevant quotations. :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Augustine's position?

Could St. Augustine of Hippo be considered an abstentionist?

“Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.” -St. Augustine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.17.168 (talk • contribs)

More info coming on this shortly (my current research for this article is on the opinions in the early church), but in short, for many of the church fathers, abstinence was recommended to avoid the opportunity for temptation. Temperance (i.e., moderation) was the ideal, but abstinence was considered easier in some ways. --Flex (talk|contribs) 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The early fathers of the church set their goals very high. The easy path was usually not the favored path. Strict abstinence often lead to pride in ones achievements, which was considered more damaging to the soul than is one had indulged. St John Climacus (6th Century) states: It is better to taste a little of each dish in order to subvert pride in ones ability to abstain.

--Phiddipus 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There were also several ascetics, movements, orders, etc. that pre-date 1800 that forbade drinking. I believe the early Quaker William Penn and John Wesley (both pre-1800) had some pretty strong words on the subjec too. Just some things to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.17.168 (talk • contribs)

Most of these ascetics also abstained from fancy foods, clothing, etc., and the hermits were generally much more ascetic than the cenobites. I'll be addressing this subject from the sources shortly. Thanks for the suggestions! --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. The article is really coming along. 66.191.19.42 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have done all my research on this topic, but I haven't had time to incorporate it yet. I spent some time breaking out and improving Alcohol in the Bible instead (cf. WP:SUMMARY) since this article was getting quite long. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is coming along quite well. The information regarding St. Augustine may be a valuable addition. 71.92.157.95 00:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Old Wine"

I've been an abstentionist all my life and know very little about winemaking and fermentation. But I was of the understanding there is a distinct difference between "Old Wine" and "New Wine" in the Bible. I'd be interested in seeing some information on this distinction from those of you who know more on the subject than I. --Andy. 209.55.80.148 16:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're specifically looking for, but there's some information in the article already concerning this. Just CTRL+F and search for 'dilut' and you'll find a few relevant passages about the strength and mixing of wine during the Old Testament times and the New Testament times.--C.Logan 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out Alcohol in the Bible for a fairly comprehensive discussion of the different types/stages of wine mentioned in the Bible. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' answer to John the Baptist's disciples was that while he was present with his disciples he was like a bride groom at a wedding feast and so his saving presence is like new wine preserved in new wine skins (Matthew 9:15-17). The teaching was in the form of a parable of "fasting and mourning" of the Pharisees, "eating and drinking" of him and his disciples (Luke 5:33), and how new teachings are accepted and preserved. Thus Luke 5:39, "No man having drunk old wine immediately desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’” The Pharisees in the New Testament were keepers and enforcers of the Law of Moses, where for example, the extreme was to hand out death sentences to adultresses, whereas Jesus and his disciples "New Covenant" of grace would say, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7). This one example reflects the power of the Messiah in His Kingdom of the primitive congregation practicing God's Law as it was intended. User:bwildasi Fri May 2 03:30:52 UTC 2008

Friends?

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a pretty long history of being teetotalers [4][5][6][7]. I think they should be added, with proper sourcing, to the Abstentionism section. 71.92.157.95 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy Sunday

We might want to include Billy Sunday in the list of abstentionists or prohibitionists. He was rather outspoken about the topic of alcohol. 68.113.47.180 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Early Church misquote

As of August 31, 2007, this section clearly has a mis-citation: "Cyprian (died 258) rejects as "contrary to evangelical and apostolical discipline" the practice of some Gnostics, who used water instead of wine in the Eucharist. While still rejecting drunkenness, on the content of the cup he says, "The Holy Spirit also ... makes mention of the Lord’s cup, and says, 'Thy inebriating cup, how excellent it is!' [quoting the Vulgate translation of Ps 23:5] Now the cup which inebriates is assuredly mingled with wine, for water cannot inebriate anybody." The Vulgate translation comes from the 5th century; is the quoted section from the Vulgate, and therefore not from Cyprian, or is it from Cyprian and therefore not the Vulgate?

Lifthrasir1 19:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. The entire quote is from Cyprian in the Schaff edition of Cyprian linked to in the footnotes. I inserted the parenthetical since that verse is rendered differently in every modern translation, which all give preference to other manuscripts. The Vulgate and Septuagint, however, give something similar to what Cyprian says. Since he was Latin, I made the incorrect leap to say that he used the Vulgate. Thanks for the catch. I have corrected the article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and Wine

Let's settle this once and for all. If Jesus Christ had been against the common drinking of wine, his first miracle would not have been turning water into wine. Case closed! Baptists, middle agers, and any other anti-alcoholers are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a discussion forum (WP:TPG#How_to_use_article_talk_pages). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, but it doesn't appear that others have remained straight in that regard on this page either. Christ's first miracle has definite significance to this article.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The points raised above (unlike some of those at Talk:Alcohol in the Bible) are generally directly related to a specific point of the article's content, as far as a quick scan can tell. In any case, the typical off-purpose post is by an anon who came from Google, is unaware that the WP has standards for talk pages, and departs quickly, whereas you are a member of the Wikipedia community. Besides, one wrong does not justify another. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse my error, it's the new year, which is like a Monday.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Early Church: Rules on Drinking and Taverns

The Synod of Laodicea (circa 363 AD) in Canon XXIV. ruled: "No one of the priesthood, from presbyters to deacons, and so on in the ecclesiastical order to subdeacons, readers, singers, exorcists, door-keepers, or any of the class of the Ascetics, ought to enter a tavern." Likewise, this synod in Canon LV. ruled: "NEITHER members of the priesthood nor of the clergy, nor yet laymen, may club together for drinking entertainments." The Quinisext Council in Trullo (692 AD) in Canon IX. ruled: "Let no cleric be permitted to keep a 'public house.' For if it be not permitted to enter a tavern, much more is it forbidden to serve others in it and to carry on a trade which is unlawful for him. But if he shall have done any such thing, either let him desist or be deposed." Does any user deny that these sources at least appear to be relevant to this article? Even so, these primary sources have been removed. Users: do you have additional historical sources about such rules? If possible, will you quote your additional historical sources? Thank you. Nephate (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They appear like they may be relevant, yes. But as I said in my edit summary, taverns, pubs, and "drinking entertainments" might be proscribed for reasons wholly or partially unrelated to alcohol itself, which is the subject of this article. We need a reliable secondary source to explain further. Compare WP:OR#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Anglicanism

Is not verifiably or undebatably Protestant and therefore should not be listed as such in the Moderationism section. Therefore, I moved it to right after Eastern Orthodox. Deusveritasest (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)