Case in point- Australian ‘Muslim’ politician when it comes to immigration, Muslim rights etc, but also quite willing to down a beer whenever he feels like it and be ‘non-practicing’. Taqqiya or lying Yahya?
As the post says ‘The justification of alcohol: those without self-control must pay for the pleasures of those with self-control.’
I think of the untold number who have alcohol related diseases or who have died as a result of drinking who have paid the price so that others may successfully drink in moderation
It’s not the fault of those who are capable of exercising restraint and self-control. Everyone is capable of making their own choices and is therefore capable of taking responsibility for their own choices.
Alcohol narrows your ability to uphold self-control. It necessarily leads to less restraint and self-control.
It increases the danger that you go too far. It is a dangerous drug and health risk.
Anything when taken too far is dangerous. Paracetamol can be dangerous. Too many bananas can be dangerous. The key in all things is moderation, and most people are capable of this, even with alcohol. If you choose not to drink, more power to you, and I respect that. That is your right. It is my right to have a cold beer on a hot summer’s day, and it hurts no one.
“Alcohol narrows your ability to uphold self-control. It necessarily leads to less restraint and self-control.
It increases the danger that you go too far. It is a dangerous drug and health risk.”
Bananas or Paracetamol do NOT narrow your ability to uphold self-control.
Don’t tell me you never drank too much. Don’t tell me you never were in a situation you regret now because you were drunk …
Even if I had, ultimately it’s my right to. I have hurt anyone whilst drunk. I have never hurt myself whilst drunk, but more importantly, it is my freedom of choice. Besides, we are all fully capable of errors of judgment, under the influence or not.
Alcohol is a substance that necessarily, by definition, increases errors of judgment. It necessarily impairs your ability to judge correctly.
” I have never hurt myself whilst drunk…” Good luck to you in the future.
Most people are probably able to drive safely without a seat belt. But it’s still illegal to drive without. Why not insist on your right to drive without safety belt?
like I stated before, hundreds of millions if not billions of people consume alcohol safely and responsibly. That some people cannot do so should not and does not reflect on the majority.
There are people who can and do abuse drugs meant for medical help (like the aforementioned paracetamol). There are people who abuse vitamins, food and various other things. I enjoy the occasional burger. Am I to be considered responsible for the lack of restraint of people who are obese? Am I responsible for those who abuse caffeine because I enjoy coffee? That’s more or less the position here.
You stress individual rights and responsibility, but you neglect the social dimension. Everyone in society is held responsible too, has to pay his/her share for the cost and damage caused by alcohol.
Why should I co-finance your right “to have a cold beer on a hot summer’s day”?
And yes, it hurts a lot of people including me, it contributes to enormous unnecessary suffering.
It’s my right to say no, enough of it. Ban alcohol.
I am not in control of or responsible for the behaviour of others. This applies not only to alcohol but life. I take responsibility for my own actions, instead of trying to palm this off in the name of the common good. I don’t use my beliefs to try and control the behaviour of others either.
Most people know to drink responsibly. In this day and age, when information about alcohol and its effects is widely available, anyone making the choice to abuse alcohol (or any substance) is doing so having made a conscious choice. Should we offer help to them? Absolutely. Should the minority who abuse something be allowed to deny everyone else that thing?
Sorry but no. The message from that is that it isn’t an individual’s fault if they do something wrong or abuse something. They are not taught ownership or responsibility.
And what exactly is ‘the common good?’ Who defines it? Who sets the rules for it?
I’d say millions of deaths, wrecked families, billions of cost for society weigh more than your individual need for having a “relaxing” drink. How about valerian tea?
like I stated before, hundreds of millions if not billions of people consume alcohol safely and responsibly. That some people cannot do so should not and does not reflect on the majority.
Some people overdose on medical drugs, such as aspirin and paracetamol. Ban alcohol and it will simply be sold without any form of regulation at all. Education is what’s relevant here – not trying to control people’s lives and effectively telling others they don’t have to accept responsibility for their actions.
You’re missing the point. Far more people drink responsibly than don’t. You want to dictate terms to those who are sensible because of the minority. Would this approach be fair if applied to other aspects of society?
You didn’t address my point RE the NHS and how we effectively all pay for everyone’s medical procedures.
Let’s also not dictate to responsible adults how they can and cannot live their lives.
As a matter of fact, yes. Placing them into a position where they can be regulated and controlled, with systems put in place to help those who need it, would be far more beneficial than having an underground drugs trade that fuels terrorism and violent crime.
Besides, you are ignoring my earlier points. By whose standard do we apply ‘common good’, and should people not be held accountable for their behaviour? Should we also ban the NHS, as this by definition leads to all taxpayers covering all sorts of costs for situations they weren’t involved in?
You’re not answering the question. My view is that we have the fundamental right to choose, and that we also then take responsibility for those choices.
Yes we have individual rights, but these rights are restricted by social responsibilities.
The alcohol producing industry is not taking responsibilities for their aggressive proliferation of alcohol.
My view is the Qur’anic view. There is some benefit in alcohol, but the damage is greater.
Who defines ‘social responsibility?’ The Quran? Neither that or the Bible take precedence in a secular society.
For that matter, every advert for alcohol now warns people to drink responsibly. Advice on this subject is readily available for people to make informed choices.
Wrong. A gun is a weapon. It is designed as such. There is no ambiguity about it. The consumption of alcohol does not automatically lead to anti-social behaviour – as I have already mentioned, it is consumed safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.
No, I’m correct. There are people who argue weapons are used “safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.”
Alcohol is “consumed safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.” No it is not. I would argue vast majority of them have been totally drunk at least once in their lives and have screwed up badly in some way or other.
Alcohol is “consumed safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.” ?? Not always, you can’t guarantee that. just one drink too many and you possibly add more victims to the unnecessary road accident or violence statistics.
It’s still a Non-sequiteur. One is designed for a specific purpose. The other is not.
I stand by my position on alcohol consumption. We all might make an error of judgment and drink too much on occasion – then again, we are all perfectly capable of screwing up whilst sober, and you are ignoring the far more numerous occasions where people are sensible with their drinking.
So when I make the statement that alcohol is consumed safely, it is true. It is true of the majority of people, the majority of the time.
Furthermore, there is another aspect to this. Ban alcohol tomorrow and people will simply find other means to acquire it. There will be none of the quality control measures to ensure it is produced properly. Whether you like it or not, it is part of our culture here, and you are ignoring the wider narrative of alcohol use in favour of the worst case scenario.
“then again, we are all perfectly capable of screwing up whilst sober, and you are ignoring the far more numerous occasions where people are sensible with their drinking.”
The point is we are more likely to screw up when drinking compared to when being being sober.
The point is you are ignoring the far more numerous occasions where people screw up because they have been drinking.
It’s not a “worst case” scenario, it’s the unfortunate day to day real misery of drinking idiots causing all sorts of terrible problems which could be reduced substantially by the easy measure of banning alcohol.
Wouldn’t cost anything. Just having the guts to say “no”. We as responsible adults don’t want to put up with this intoxication any more. I’m sure you could find something more sensible to relax with.
The point is, you are greatly exaggerating the scale of the problem. You would like to deny the vast majority who are sensible because of a minority who aren’t. I can apply that argument to many things – there’s a minority of people out there who abuse their religious beliefs to inflict pain and death upon those who don’t share their beliefs. Should we ban religion?
The bottom line is, you are being judgemental. It’s not enough for you to make your own choice – you want to impose your choice, based on your views (you have mentioned the Quaranic position more than once) upon the rest of us. You wish to absolve people of the responsibility to make their own choices. You don’t have the right to do that.
I’m not exaggerating. Just look at the statistics. Millions of deaths, wrecked lives, billions of cost. If you just want to shrug your shoulders, ok fine, after all you are a self proclaimed responsible adult who insists on his right to relax. Fine.
“there’s a minority of people out there who abuse their religious beliefs to inflict pain and death upon those who don’t share their beliefs. Should we ban religion?” Talk about non-sequitur.
“You wish to absolve people of the responsibility to make their own choices.”
No, on the contrary, I want people to REMAIN RESPONSIBLE to make their own choices by staying sober.
As soon as you drink alcohol you reduce your ability to act responsibly. That’s the very nature of what alcohol does to you.
My point remains valid. You don’t like the comparison between the damage caused by a minority of irresponsible drinkers and a minority of religious fanatics, but it’s the same logic you are using. You’re holding anyone and everyone who drinks responsible for the behaviour of anyone abuses alcohol. I am simply using your own reasoning. It can be applied to religious beliefs. It can be applied to political values.
You don’t want people to take responsibility for their own behaviour. You would prefer a nanny state. You want to dictate to responsible adults how they should live their lives, because of a minority.
You also failed to address my point regarding what would happen if you banned alcohol. It would simply move underground, and become far more difficult to regulate.
I think you could make the same argument for islam. Not all muslims are violent, or interpret islamic sources as violent, but a sizeable minority do. SHould we therefore, ban islam since there are a minority who cannot control their fanboi love of mohammed’s manly aggressions?
Islamic violence is totally normal. There is nothing problematic in Islamic violence unless you are a modern secularist. Just because there are modern liberal rules about violence we will not start changing our religion like Christians did.
A real Christian does not have a problem with the Shariah. A Christian may resist Islamic conquering but when it is unavoidable there would be no problem for Christians to live under the Shariah as a Dhimmi. I say: for a real Christians. Modern secular Christians would have a problem and therefore there is no Dhimmah for them. Their verse is verse 9:5 “kill the infidels wherever you find them” instead 9:29 “fight them until they pay the jizya” (paraphrased).
Whoever has a problem with the Shariah has the right of the sword.
You said;
I think you could make the same argument for islam. Not all muslims are violent, or interpret islamic sources as violent, but a sizeable minority do. SHould we therefore, ban islam since there are a minority who cannot control their fanboi love of mohammed’s manly aggressions?
Something to think about……..
I say;
Christians are violent as well. You forgot crusades? violent Christians killing each other? Catholics Christians and Mormons burnt to death by protestants in the USA until the Christians were beaten severely by the liberals and secularists? You forgot the police are the ones controlling violent Christians? but still they go out shooting doctors in Churches because they are abortion Doctors.
So, the question is not for only Muslim violent minorities, but Christian violent minorities. Jewish violent minorities, Hindu violent minorities etc,.
Recently some black minorities have started shooting and Killing police. SHOULD WE THEREFORE BAN ALL BLACKS since there are minority who cannot control their fanboi love of Jesus Christ who openly said his enemies must be murdered?
Christians are still murdering people because Jesus called a woman dog and ransacked and destroy property by turning peoples tables upside down. Jesus Christ commanded for children, cattle, apostates to be killed and Christians are still using that to cause genocide in Bosnia to Muslims, Brundi, Uganda, Central Africa etc.
If you do not know this and focusing on Islam alone I will call you fool like Sam Shamoun who has got a big stock full of filth but calling Muslims who wash their hands and other parts of the body every now and then as filth.
This idiot and brainless Sam Shamoun said Allah did not heal PW but that stupid and useless Sam Shamoun forgot his lord Jesus Christ did not come down on earth to love anyone because he(Sam Shamoun) is not getting any love from Jesus Christ because his stomach is big and full of shit, bacteria and filth and he cannot go back to school and learn like David and Nabeel did.
D, you are behaving like Sam Shamoun, we sees worse things in yourself and in Christianity but ignore them and attack Islam on lesser charges that are unfounded, It makes you fool.
Christians must be banned first before Muslims. You fool and idiot brainless child.
You said;
My point remains valid. You don’t like the comparison between the damage caused by a minority of irresponsible drinkers and a minority of religious fanatics, but it’s the same logic you are using. You’re holding anyone and everyone who drinks responsible for the behaviour of anyone abuses alcohol. I am simply using your own reasoning. It can be applied to religious beliefs. It can be applied to political values.
I say;
You are comparing apples and bananas. Religion has scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which is common to all its adherents. Whereas alcoholics have no scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which are common to those who drink,.
Alcoholics do not have any central tenet but religion has
Alcoholics has no central focusing point like how religion is focusing on God or God Man in case of Trinitarians.
Alcoholics has nothing to regulate and control their live while religion regulates and control peoples lives.
What alcoholic A does is not control by what Alcoholic B or C does.
When a religious extreme does something, then people start to search the scripture of that individual to blame his religion.
If an alcoholic kills which they do everyday more than religious fanatics, there is no scripture, prophet, etc. to blame. So one entity is an established one and the other is not established so you cannot compare them.
Religion is not intoxication. Religion can be compared with another religion and that is fair. Intoxication cannot be compared with religion.
[quoteYou are comparing apples and bananas. Religion has scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which is common to all its adherents. Whereas alcoholics have no scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which are common to those who drink,.
Alcoholics do not have any central tenet but religion Has[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Religious fanatics can and do kill (usually far more willingly than alcoholics do). It would not be remotely fair to suggest they are representative of all religious followers. The same is true of the vast majority of people who enjoy alcohol.
Do you see the comparison here, and why it’s unfair?
You said…Recently some black minorities have started shooting and Killing police. SHOULD WE THEREFORE BAN ALL BLACKS since there are minority who cannot control their fanboi love of Jesus Christ who openly said his enemies must be murdered?
Intellect always quotes the parable of the ten minas:
Luke 19 v 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Which I would understand to refer to the time that Jesus returns for the day of judgement.
12He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
15And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
Yes, so when Jesus returns, he will not be the peace-loving man he was. Rather, he will revert to his old ways: murder and mayhem. After all, he was the one who commanded the murder of babies in the Old Testament, since you Christians believe he was “God”.
Hi Faiz
you are another example of Muslim that is talking before they think.
Who killed all the men women and children in Noah’s flood?
Who killed all the men women and children in Sodom and Gormorah?
More recently who allowed the death of 200,000 plus men women and children in Tsunami?
Please send me the murder and mayhem of Jesus in the Old Testament some of you Muslims come on the blog and talk madness because you believe in a cut and paste religion.
As of yet I am still waiting for a Muslim to explain to me what the Angel wanted Muhammad to read.
I mean your own book is confused when it comes to righteousness…you can’t have alcohol and women down here but you can have wine and women in heaven.
Intellect always quotes the parable of the ten minas
I say;
When it is Islam, it is bad but when it is Christianity it is parable. You “dandyhead”. I do not care whether it is parable or not, I am concerned when it says Jesus enemies must be killed not in war. Is parable to kill someone because he does not agree with your views good?
I think it is not good and Christians will call it terrorism. Jesus Christ must be charged with terrorism, arrested and put into jail.
Imagine a Muslim Imam in the US or Germany quoting the exact words of Jesus below. That Imam will be linked to ISIS, arrested and put the jail.
Luke 19:27
Parallel Verses
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”
New Living Translation
And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king–bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'”
English Standard Version
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
Dr. James White is sensible and is advocating for stopping attacking each other or violence because it is easy to find verses in all scripture and interpret it the way one wants. You will not agree with Dr. James White and be ready to accept the violent Jesus who is not on earth to love anyone by not loving Sam Shamoun and rather causes Sam Shamoun’s stomach to keep expanding with filth. For sure Jesus is not on this earth to love Sam Shamoun and Christians because he is a proof Christians are suffering like anyone else.
When a Muslim suffers he believed God did not come down to earth to love him but the world is temporal place for test to keep his faith in God no matter the situation he finds himself in.
Sam Shamoun must ask Jesus “Why did you not love me?” “and let my stomach keep expanding?” It is certainly not love from Jesus Christ to let a Christian stomach to keep expanding. He must think about that critically.
Jesus was controlled by the Romans and do not have power to execute his atrocities he commanded in the Old Testament but will surely do the atrocities when he has power. You are not concerned about these atrocities about Jesus Christ bur concerned about Islam.
You “dandyheads” except Dr. James White who is intelligent except that he worships man or God Man.
Christians are still murdering people because Jesus called a woman dog and ransacked and destroy property by turning peoples tables upside down. Jesus Christ commanded for children, cattle, apostates to be killed and Christians are still using that to cause genocide in Bosnia to Muslims, Brundi, Uganda, Central Africa etc.
1. Where in the text did you read that Jesus looked at the woman and call her a dog? It was the woman who applied that term to herself…read the text carefully.
2. Jesus was coming to his own temple that was being used to financially rip off Gentiles who came to the court of the Gentiles to worship…so Jesus threw over their money tables things that were NOT meant to be in the temple.
3. Well correct if I am wrong but didn’t the Muslims join the German army and had their own tank division and killer squads that fought with Hitler and took part in killing Jews.
Bro if you want go there we can debate that because you Muslims are good at bringing lots of points all at one time thinking that it proves your case, sorry you are going to have to try harder.
The truth is Islam has been been ransacking lots of countries, how on earth did they all these different types of literature in Baghdad…The Translation movement.
Taking other countries works of Litrature and bringing it back to Baghdad and translating it into Arabic, and then try to act like the Arabs / Muslims are the originators.
When did Spain ever attack the Muslims for being Muslims? Answer is they never so why on earth were the Muslims going into to Spain trying to take over.
You guys are bunch of liars trying gloss what really happened if you had kept yourselves in Mecca and Arabia there would have been no crusades.
You did not defend Christ very well in this instance. May be you do not understand English very well. Jesus did call the woman dog.
Here is it
For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him [Jesus—KB], and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed (7:25-30; see also Matthew 15:21-28).
Christians agree to that and try to explain it but will not allow Muslims to explain any violent text in their literature and they are “dandyheads” except Dr. James White who has seen this.
You said;
2. Jesus was coming to his own temple that was being used to financially rip off Gentiles who came to the court of the Gentiles to worship…so Jesus threw over their money tables things that were NOT meant to be in the temple.
I say;
From what you said and I copy and pasted above, Jesus has sinful nature and sinfulness in anger and hate and committed sin by destroying peoples property. It does not give Jesus right to be angry and committed sin by destroying their property. If you ransacked peoples tables with coins you will break the tables and the coins scattered and get lost in the process. Jesus has to pay them the money that got lost.
Christians will not take all these into consideration but to attack Muslims, Islam and their prophets. You “dandyheads” except Dr. James White who has realized this.
Sorry intellect
You are not living up to your name.
Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Hi Kmak
This is what you asked…
To what extent does Islam cause Muslims to be violent? Can you cite a single study that analyzes this question by way of regression analysis?
Well let’s take the people drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad, hundreds and thousands Muslims went out demonstrating burning flags threatening violence.
Making up laws about people not being allowed to blaspheme the prophet.
Not one Muslim knows what Muhammad looked like yet want to kill people for drawing cartoons, what we are looking at very insecure and violent people
Let me correct EVERY Muslim on this YOU CANNOT blaspheme a MAN you can slander a man,but when it comes to BLASPHEMY IT IS ONLY AGAINST GOD.
So let’s not try and be clever about all these debates on violence.
I can look at the bible and get a timeline and study where and when something was taking place, the Koran on the other hand states things and you have no idea when these things took place.
So the violent verses in the Koran are taken to be timeless opposed to an event at a certain time in the bible.
Paul you should rename the title as the “justification of getting drunk…” Since there is nothing really wrong with alcohol when it is consumed in moderation or small amounts.
The problem isn’t alcohol, it’s the person or people who drink too much and get drunk by it. Also bare in mind that people react differently when drunk. Not every drunk person becomes aggressive or violent.
And last thing to bare in mind is that the Quran itself initially endorsed or allowed alcohol for Muslims to drink for a particular time. Indeed many Muslims from every part of the world still indulge in the act of drinking alcohol. I know of Muslims from Saudi Arabia who travel to Bahrain on the weekends just to drink alcohol since it is banned in Saudi but legal in certain parts of Bahrain. So like someone noted earlier, it’s more of a heart/sin issue rather than the substance itself. When you restrict people too much they always try to find loopholes so that they can be free, this a big problem in many parts of the Muslim world.
DefendChrist, Intellect is right. You do a bad job of defending Christ.
Your response is typical of every other apologist on the shocking and embarrassing stories of murder and mayhem in your Bible. You seem to think that because God has destroyed people in the past for their sins or that people die due to natural causes, somehow this excuses the murder of innocent people in the name of your god. You people are suffering from Biblically-inspired. madness. The Bible makes you people crazy. I really think you should see a psychiatrist if you think murdering people because God allegedly said so, including BABIES, is akin to people dying from natural causes.
Do you really want me to list the examples from your Bible showing that your god, Jesus Christ, ordered the extermination of tens of thousands of people? I’m in a rush right now, so if you really want me to list those verses, let me know and I will do so later.
Finally, on a quick note, your confusion about the Quran just shows that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of…talking before thinking. Where does the Quran say that Muslims can’t have women down here? Also, do you realize that heavenly wine is not the same as earthly wine? It’s really not hard to understand if you simply your head, but I know that’s hard for you Christians to do. It’s okay, though. I know it’s not your fault. 😉
Blogging Theology 
This is another beauty of Islam, a complete ban on alcohol. It’s the ebst way forward for a society that wants to encourage God consciousness.
LikeLike
Yahya, sorry but this ban simply isn’t adhered to. Sure many Muslims would, but I’ve seen and met many others that ignore the prohibition.
In others words, it’s a heart/sin issue not a law issue
LikeLike
Surely it’s both/and not either or
LikeLiked by 1 person
Case in point- Australian ‘Muslim’ politician when it comes to immigration, Muslim rights etc, but also quite willing to down a beer whenever he feels like it and be ‘non-practicing’. Taqqiya or lying Yahya?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3696731/Sam-Dastyari-told-Pauline-Hanson-Q-Muslim-says-s-non-practising.html?ito=social-facebook
LikeLike
Most people know to drink in moderation.
LikeLike
And those that don’t?
LikeLike
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/23/no-healthy-level-of-alcohol-consumption-says-major-study
It’s a major study released recently.
LikeLike
Those that don’t shouldn’t be taken as representative of those that do.
LikeLike
As the post says ‘The justification of alcohol: those without self-control must pay for the pleasures of those with self-control.’
I think of the untold number who have alcohol related diseases or who have died as a result of drinking who have paid the price so that others may successfully drink in moderation
LikeLike
It’s not the fault of those who are capable of exercising restraint and self-control. Everyone is capable of making their own choices and is therefore capable of taking responsibility for their own choices.
LikeLike
“Everyone is capable of making their own choices and is therefore capable of taking responsibility for their own choices.”
Not when you had one too many. The main reason people drink is to lessen restraint and self-control.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. A lot of people don’t go that far. Most people drink to help themselves relax.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alcohol narrows your ability to uphold self-control. It necessarily leads to less restraint and self-control.
It increases the danger that you go too far. It is a dangerous drug and health risk.
LikeLike
Anything when taken too far is dangerous. Paracetamol can be dangerous. Too many bananas can be dangerous. The key in all things is moderation, and most people are capable of this, even with alcohol. If you choose not to drink, more power to you, and I respect that. That is your right. It is my right to have a cold beer on a hot summer’s day, and it hurts no one.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1
“Alcohol narrows your ability to uphold self-control. It necessarily leads to less restraint and self-control.
It increases the danger that you go too far. It is a dangerous drug and health risk.”
So does islam……
LikeLike
Don’t. Just don’t.
LikeLike
darthtimon
Bananas or Paracetamol do NOT narrow your ability to uphold self-control.
Don’t tell me you never drank too much. Don’t tell me you never were in a situation you regret now because you were drunk …
LikeLike
Even if I had, ultimately it’s my right to. I have hurt anyone whilst drunk. I have never hurt myself whilst drunk, but more importantly, it is my freedom of choice. Besides, we are all fully capable of errors of judgment, under the influence or not.
LikeLike
Alcohol is a substance that necessarily, by definition, increases errors of judgment. It necessarily impairs your ability to judge correctly.
” I have never hurt myself whilst drunk…” Good luck to you in the future.
Most people are probably able to drive safely without a seat belt. But it’s still illegal to drive without. Why not insist on your right to drive without safety belt?
LikeLike
Non-sequiteur. Alcohol is not illegal. There are different degrees of alcohol consumption, whereas there aren’t degrees of seatbelt use.
LikeLike
I’m sure if alcohol was invented today it would be banned as a dangerous drug
LikeLike
It probably would, but it wasn’t and therefore isn’t. Most people can and do drink responsibly, let’s not tar everyone with the same brush.
LikeLike
Far too many people can not drink responsibly.
And all people run a risk of not drinking responsibly once they had the first glass.
LikeLike
Vastly overstates the problem. Alcohol is consumed safely the world over by hundreds of millions if not billions of human beings.
LikeLike
The damage is worse than the benefits. The qur’anic position.
LikeLike
like I stated before, hundreds of millions if not billions of people consume alcohol safely and responsibly. That some people cannot do so should not and does not reflect on the majority.
LikeLike
“That some people cannot do so …”
Just read the statistics on alcohol related deaths and deseases, the economic damage for society as a whole …
I personally find your comparison with “too many bananas” cynical.
LikeLike
I find the stance that someone who drinks responsibly to be somehow responsible for someone who doesn’t to be judgemental.
LikeLike
its called loving your neighbour.
LikeLike
That phrase is often used as an excuse to interfere in other people’s lives.
LikeLike
and those who dismiss are usually individualists who care not for the common good
LikeLike
Not true in the slightest.
LikeLike
There are people who can and do abuse drugs meant for medical help (like the aforementioned paracetamol). There are people who abuse vitamins, food and various other things. I enjoy the occasional burger. Am I to be considered responsible for the lack of restraint of people who are obese? Am I responsible for those who abuse caffeine because I enjoy coffee? That’s more or less the position here.
LikeLike
You support an industry that causes tremendous individual and social damage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I support no such thing. What I ‘do’ is to take responsibility for my own actions and expect the same of others.
LikeLike
Yes you do. With every pint you finance it.
You stress individual rights and responsibility, but you neglect the social dimension. Everyone in society is held responsible too, has to pay his/her share for the cost and damage caused by alcohol.
Why should I co-finance your right “to have a cold beer on a hot summer’s day”?
And yes, it hurts a lot of people including me, it contributes to enormous unnecessary suffering.
It’s my right to say no, enough of it. Ban alcohol.
LikeLike
I am not in control of or responsible for the behaviour of others. This applies not only to alcohol but life. I take responsibility for my own actions, instead of trying to palm this off in the name of the common good. I don’t use my beliefs to try and control the behaviour of others either.
Most people know to drink responsibly. In this day and age, when information about alcohol and its effects is widely available, anyone making the choice to abuse alcohol (or any substance) is doing so having made a conscious choice. Should we offer help to them? Absolutely. Should the minority who abuse something be allowed to deny everyone else that thing?
LikeLike
“Should the minority who abuse something be allowed to deny everyone else that thing?”
Yes, if the overall damage caused is larger than the common good.
LikeLike
Sorry but no. The message from that is that it isn’t an individual’s fault if they do something wrong or abuse something. They are not taught ownership or responsibility.
And what exactly is ‘the common good?’ Who defines it? Who sets the rules for it?
LikeLike
I’d say millions of deaths, wrecked families, billions of cost for society weigh more than your individual need for having a “relaxing” drink. How about valerian tea?
LikeLike
like I stated before, hundreds of millions if not billions of people consume alcohol safely and responsibly. That some people cannot do so should not and does not reflect on the majority.
LikeLike
Many people takes drugs (like fixative) and I’ve apparently normal lives. Some who take the drug end up dead.
Just the same as alcohol though booze causes much more misery and death globally.
LikeLike
Some people overdose on medical drugs, such as aspirin and paracetamol. Ban alcohol and it will simply be sold without any form of regulation at all. Education is what’s relevant here – not trying to control people’s lives and effectively telling others they don’t have to accept responsibility for their actions.
LikeLike
“That some people cannot do so should not and does not reflect on the majority.”
It does reflect on everybody else.
In 2010, alcohol misuse problems cost the United States $249.0 billion. That’s a lot bananas to eat.
Who has to pay for that unnecessary damage? Everybody, including the ones who do not drink at all.
Your drinking habit is part of the problem. Let’s dry out this unhealthy swamp. Stop drinking.
LikeLike
You’re missing the point. Far more people drink responsibly than don’t. You want to dictate terms to those who are sensible because of the minority. Would this approach be fair if applied to other aspects of society?
You didn’t address my point RE the NHS and how we effectively all pay for everyone’s medical procedures.
Let’s also not dictate to responsible adults how they can and cannot live their lives.
LikeLike
Do you favour the legalisation of drugs?
LikeLike
As a matter of fact, yes. Placing them into a position where they can be regulated and controlled, with systems put in place to help those who need it, would be far more beneficial than having an underground drugs trade that fuels terrorism and violent crime.
LikeLike
How about guns? Free guns for everyone. After all most people can handle guns responsibly.
LikeLike
Non-sequiteur. A gun is designed for one purpose. Alcohol is not a weapon.
LikeLike
Besides, you are ignoring my earlier points. By whose standard do we apply ‘common good’, and should people not be held accountable for their behaviour? Should we also ban the NHS, as this by definition leads to all taxpayers covering all sorts of costs for situations they weren’t involved in?
LikeLike
Weapons are potentially dangerous.
Alcohol is potentially very dangerous. When you drink it, you run the risk of poisoning yourself and society.
LikeLike
Still a Non-sequiteur. Guns are designed to kill. Alcohol is not.
LikeLike
darthtimon you ask
“By whose standard do we apply ‘common good’, and should people not be held accountable for their behavior?”
By whose standard should we not dictate to responsible adults how they can and cannot live their lives.
LikeLike
You’re not answering the question. My view is that we have the fundamental right to choose, and that we also then take responsibility for those choices.
LikeLike
Yes we have individual rights, but these rights are restricted by social responsibilities.
The alcohol producing industry is not taking responsibilities for their aggressive proliferation of alcohol.
My view is the Qur’anic view. There is some benefit in alcohol, but the damage is greater.
LikeLike
Who defines ‘social responsibility?’ The Quran? Neither that or the Bible take precedence in a secular society.
For that matter, every advert for alcohol now warns people to drink responsibly. Advice on this subject is readily available for people to make informed choices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Still a Non-sequiteur. Guns are designed to kill. Alcohol is not.”
Alcohol is “designed” to dull your mind and let you act irresponsibly and anti-social. And yes, alcohol is “designed” to kill.
LikeLike
Wrong. A gun is a weapon. It is designed as such. There is no ambiguity about it. The consumption of alcohol does not automatically lead to anti-social behaviour – as I have already mentioned, it is consumed safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.
LikeLike
No, I’m correct. There are people who argue weapons are used “safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.”
Alcohol is “consumed safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.” No it is not. I would argue vast majority of them have been totally drunk at least once in their lives and have screwed up badly in some way or other.
Alcohol is “consumed safely and sensibly by millions of sensible adults.” ?? Not always, you can’t guarantee that. just one drink too many and you possibly add more victims to the unnecessary road accident or violence statistics.
LikeLike
It’s still a Non-sequiteur. One is designed for a specific purpose. The other is not.
I stand by my position on alcohol consumption. We all might make an error of judgment and drink too much on occasion – then again, we are all perfectly capable of screwing up whilst sober, and you are ignoring the far more numerous occasions where people are sensible with their drinking.
So when I make the statement that alcohol is consumed safely, it is true. It is true of the majority of people, the majority of the time.
Furthermore, there is another aspect to this. Ban alcohol tomorrow and people will simply find other means to acquire it. There will be none of the quality control measures to ensure it is produced properly. Whether you like it or not, it is part of our culture here, and you are ignoring the wider narrative of alcohol use in favour of the worst case scenario.
LikeLike
“then again, we are all perfectly capable of screwing up whilst sober, and you are ignoring the far more numerous occasions where people are sensible with their drinking.”
The point is we are more likely to screw up when drinking compared to when being being sober.
The point is you are ignoring the far more numerous occasions where people screw up because they have been drinking.
It’s not a “worst case” scenario, it’s the unfortunate day to day real misery of drinking idiots causing all sorts of terrible problems which could be reduced substantially by the easy measure of banning alcohol.
Wouldn’t cost anything. Just having the guts to say “no”. We as responsible adults don’t want to put up with this intoxication any more. I’m sure you could find something more sensible to relax with.
LikeLike
The point is, you are greatly exaggerating the scale of the problem. You would like to deny the vast majority who are sensible because of a minority who aren’t. I can apply that argument to many things – there’s a minority of people out there who abuse their religious beliefs to inflict pain and death upon those who don’t share their beliefs. Should we ban religion?
The bottom line is, you are being judgemental. It’s not enough for you to make your own choice – you want to impose your choice, based on your views (you have mentioned the Quaranic position more than once) upon the rest of us. You wish to absolve people of the responsibility to make their own choices. You don’t have the right to do that.
LikeLike
I’m not exaggerating. Just look at the statistics. Millions of deaths, wrecked lives, billions of cost. If you just want to shrug your shoulders, ok fine, after all you are a self proclaimed responsible adult who insists on his right to relax. Fine.
“there’s a minority of people out there who abuse their religious beliefs to inflict pain and death upon those who don’t share their beliefs. Should we ban religion?” Talk about non-sequitur.
“You wish to absolve people of the responsibility to make their own choices.”
No, on the contrary, I want people to REMAIN RESPONSIBLE to make their own choices by staying sober.
As soon as you drink alcohol you reduce your ability to act responsibly. That’s the very nature of what alcohol does to you.
And I have every right to point that out.
LikeLike
My point remains valid. You don’t like the comparison between the damage caused by a minority of irresponsible drinkers and a minority of religious fanatics, but it’s the same logic you are using. You’re holding anyone and everyone who drinks responsible for the behaviour of anyone abuses alcohol. I am simply using your own reasoning. It can be applied to religious beliefs. It can be applied to political values.
You don’t want people to take responsibility for their own behaviour. You would prefer a nanny state. You want to dictate to responsible adults how they should live their lives, because of a minority.
You also failed to address my point regarding what would happen if you banned alcohol. It would simply move underground, and become far more difficult to regulate.
LikeLike
I think you could make the same argument for islam. Not all muslims are violent, or interpret islamic sources as violent, but a sizeable minority do. SHould we therefore, ban islam since there are a minority who cannot control their fanboi love of mohammed’s manly aggressions?
Something to think about……..
LikeLike
To what extent does Islam cause Muslims to be violent? Can you cite a single study that analyzes this question by way of regression analysis?
LikeLike
Islamic violence is totally normal. There is nothing problematic in Islamic violence unless you are a modern secularist. Just because there are modern liberal rules about violence we will not start changing our religion like Christians did.
A real Christian does not have a problem with the Shariah. A Christian may resist Islamic conquering but when it is unavoidable there would be no problem for Christians to live under the Shariah as a Dhimmi. I say: for a real Christians. Modern secular Christians would have a problem and therefore there is no Dhimmah for them. Their verse is verse 9:5 “kill the infidels wherever you find them” instead 9:29 “fight them until they pay the jizya” (paraphrased).
Whoever has a problem with the Shariah has the right of the sword.
LikeLike
Christians are evil!
LikeLike
D, just don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
D
You said;
I think you could make the same argument for islam. Not all muslims are violent, or interpret islamic sources as violent, but a sizeable minority do. SHould we therefore, ban islam since there are a minority who cannot control their fanboi love of mohammed’s manly aggressions?
Something to think about……..
I say;
Christians are violent as well. You forgot crusades? violent Christians killing each other? Catholics Christians and Mormons burnt to death by protestants in the USA until the Christians were beaten severely by the liberals and secularists? You forgot the police are the ones controlling violent Christians? but still they go out shooting doctors in Churches because they are abortion Doctors.
So, the question is not for only Muslim violent minorities, but Christian violent minorities. Jewish violent minorities, Hindu violent minorities etc,.
Recently some black minorities have started shooting and Killing police. SHOULD WE THEREFORE BAN ALL BLACKS since there are minority who cannot control their fanboi love of Jesus Christ who openly said his enemies must be murdered?
Christians are still murdering people because Jesus called a woman dog and ransacked and destroy property by turning peoples tables upside down. Jesus Christ commanded for children, cattle, apostates to be killed and Christians are still using that to cause genocide in Bosnia to Muslims, Brundi, Uganda, Central Africa etc.
If you do not know this and focusing on Islam alone I will call you fool like Sam Shamoun who has got a big stock full of filth but calling Muslims who wash their hands and other parts of the body every now and then as filth.
This idiot and brainless Sam Shamoun said Allah did not heal PW but that stupid and useless Sam Shamoun forgot his lord Jesus Christ did not come down on earth to love anyone because he(Sam Shamoun) is not getting any love from Jesus Christ because his stomach is big and full of shit, bacteria and filth and he cannot go back to school and learn like David and Nabeel did.
D, you are behaving like Sam Shamoun, we sees worse things in yourself and in Christianity but ignore them and attack Islam on lesser charges that are unfounded, It makes you fool.
Christians must be banned first before Muslims. You fool and idiot brainless child.
Thanks.
LikeLike
darthtimon
You said;
My point remains valid. You don’t like the comparison between the damage caused by a minority of irresponsible drinkers and a minority of religious fanatics, but it’s the same logic you are using. You’re holding anyone and everyone who drinks responsible for the behaviour of anyone abuses alcohol. I am simply using your own reasoning. It can be applied to religious beliefs. It can be applied to political values.
I say;
You are comparing apples and bananas. Religion has scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which is common to all its adherents. Whereas alcoholics have no scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which are common to those who drink,.
Alcoholics do not have any central tenet but religion has
Alcoholics has no central focusing point like how religion is focusing on God or God Man in case of Trinitarians.
Alcoholics has nothing to regulate and control their live while religion regulates and control peoples lives.
What alcoholic A does is not control by what Alcoholic B or C does.
When a religious extreme does something, then people start to search the scripture of that individual to blame his religion.
If an alcoholic kills which they do everyday more than religious fanatics, there is no scripture, prophet, etc. to blame. So one entity is an established one and the other is not established so you cannot compare them.
Religion is not intoxication. Religion can be compared with another religion and that is fair. Intoxication cannot be compared with religion.
Thanks.
LikeLike
[quoteYou are comparing apples and bananas. Religion has scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which is common to all its adherents. Whereas alcoholics have no scripture, prophets, rules, regulations, laws etc. which are common to those who drink,.
Alcoholics do not have any central tenet but religion Has[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Religious fanatics can and do kill (usually far more willingly than alcoholics do). It would not be remotely fair to suggest they are representative of all religious followers. The same is true of the vast majority of people who enjoy alcohol.
Do you see the comparison here, and why it’s unfair?
LikeLike
Hey Intellect
You said…Recently some black minorities have started shooting and Killing police. SHOULD WE THEREFORE BAN ALL BLACKS since there are minority who cannot control their fanboi love of Jesus Christ who openly said his enemies must be murdered?
Where did Jesus say His enemies must be murdered?
LikeLike
Intellect always quotes the parable of the ten minas:
Luke 19 v 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Which I would understand to refer to the time that Jesus returns for the day of judgement.
12He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
15And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
LikeLike
Yes, so when Jesus returns, he will not be the peace-loving man he was. Rather, he will revert to his old ways: murder and mayhem. After all, he was the one who commanded the murder of babies in the Old Testament, since you Christians believe he was “God”.
LikeLike
Hi Faiz
you are another example of Muslim that is talking before they think.
Who killed all the men women and children in Noah’s flood?
Who killed all the men women and children in Sodom and Gormorah?
More recently who allowed the death of 200,000 plus men women and children in Tsunami?
Please send me the murder and mayhem of Jesus in the Old Testament some of you Muslims come on the blog and talk madness because you believe in a cut and paste religion.
As of yet I am still waiting for a Muslim to explain to me what the Angel wanted Muhammad to read.
I mean your own book is confused when it comes to righteousness…you can’t have alcohol and women down here but you can have wine and women in heaven.
LikeLike
madmanna
You said;
madmanna
July 21, 2016 • 1:06 am
Intellect always quotes the parable of the ten minas
I say;
When it is Islam, it is bad but when it is Christianity it is parable. You “dandyhead”. I do not care whether it is parable or not, I am concerned when it says Jesus enemies must be killed not in war. Is parable to kill someone because he does not agree with your views good?
I think it is not good and Christians will call it terrorism. Jesus Christ must be charged with terrorism, arrested and put into jail.
Imagine a Muslim Imam in the US or Germany quoting the exact words of Jesus below. That Imam will be linked to ISIS, arrested and put the jail.
Luke 19:27
Parallel Verses
New International Version
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”
New Living Translation
And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king–bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.'”
English Standard Version
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
Dr. James White is sensible and is advocating for stopping attacking each other or violence because it is easy to find verses in all scripture and interpret it the way one wants. You will not agree with Dr. James White and be ready to accept the violent Jesus who is not on earth to love anyone by not loving Sam Shamoun and rather causes Sam Shamoun’s stomach to keep expanding with filth. For sure Jesus is not on this earth to love Sam Shamoun and Christians because he is a proof Christians are suffering like anyone else.
When a Muslim suffers he believed God did not come down to earth to love him but the world is temporal place for test to keep his faith in God no matter the situation he finds himself in.
Sam Shamoun must ask Jesus “Why did you not love me?” “and let my stomach keep expanding?” It is certainly not love from Jesus Christ to let a Christian stomach to keep expanding. He must think about that critically.
Jesus was controlled by the Romans and do not have power to execute his atrocities he commanded in the Old Testament but will surely do the atrocities when he has power. You are not concerned about these atrocities about Jesus Christ bur concerned about Islam.
You “dandyheads” except Dr. James White who is intelligent except that he worships man or God Man.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi intellect
You said the following…
Christians are still murdering people because Jesus called a woman dog and ransacked and destroy property by turning peoples tables upside down. Jesus Christ commanded for children, cattle, apostates to be killed and Christians are still using that to cause genocide in Bosnia to Muslims, Brundi, Uganda, Central Africa etc.
1. Where in the text did you read that Jesus looked at the woman and call her a dog? It was the woman who applied that term to herself…read the text carefully.
2. Jesus was coming to his own temple that was being used to financially rip off Gentiles who came to the court of the Gentiles to worship…so Jesus threw over their money tables things that were NOT meant to be in the temple.
3. Well correct if I am wrong but didn’t the Muslims join the German army and had their own tank division and killer squads that fought with Hitler and took part in killing Jews.
Bro if you want go there we can debate that because you Muslims are good at bringing lots of points all at one time thinking that it proves your case, sorry you are going to have to try harder.
The truth is Islam has been been ransacking lots of countries, how on earth did they all these different types of literature in Baghdad…The Translation movement.
Taking other countries works of Litrature and bringing it back to Baghdad and translating it into Arabic, and then try to act like the Arabs / Muslims are the originators.
When did Spain ever attack the Muslims for being Muslims? Answer is they never so why on earth were the Muslims going into to Spain trying to take over.
You guys are bunch of liars trying gloss what really happened if you had kept yourselves in Mecca and Arabia there would have been no crusades.
LikeLike
defend Christ
You did not defend Christ very well in this instance. May be you do not understand English very well. Jesus did call the woman dog.
Here is it
For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him [Jesus—KB], and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed (7:25-30; see also Matthew 15:21-28).
Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=317
Christians agree to that and try to explain it but will not allow Muslims to explain any violent text in their literature and they are “dandyheads” except Dr. James White who has seen this.
You said;
2. Jesus was coming to his own temple that was being used to financially rip off Gentiles who came to the court of the Gentiles to worship…so Jesus threw over their money tables things that were NOT meant to be in the temple.
I say;
From what you said and I copy and pasted above, Jesus has sinful nature and sinfulness in anger and hate and committed sin by destroying peoples property. It does not give Jesus right to be angry and committed sin by destroying their property. If you ransacked peoples tables with coins you will break the tables and the coins scattered and get lost in the process. Jesus has to pay them the money that got lost.
Christians will not take all these into consideration but to attack Muslims, Islam and their prophets. You “dandyheads” except Dr. James White who has realized this.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Sorry intellect
You are not living up to your name.
Mat 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
Mat 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Notice what Jesus said…a den of thieves.
LikeLike
Hi Kmak
This is what you asked…
To what extent does Islam cause Muslims to be violent? Can you cite a single study that analyzes this question by way of regression analysis?
Well let’s take the people drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad, hundreds and thousands Muslims went out demonstrating burning flags threatening violence.
Making up laws about people not being allowed to blaspheme the prophet.
Not one Muslim knows what Muhammad looked like yet want to kill people for drawing cartoons, what we are looking at very insecure and violent people
Let me correct EVERY Muslim on this YOU CANNOT blaspheme a MAN you can slander a man,but when it comes to BLASPHEMY IT IS ONLY AGAINST GOD.
So let’s not try and be clever about all these debates on violence.
I can look at the bible and get a timeline and study where and when something was taking place, the Koran on the other hand states things and you have no idea when these things took place.
So the violent verses in the Koran are taken to be timeless opposed to an event at a certain time in the bible.
No one commanded to go and kill Amalakites today
LikeLike
Alcohol Linked To Seven Types Of Cancer – Study
http://news.sky.com/story/alcohol-linked-to-seven-types-of-cancer-study-10509047
LikeLike
Paul you should rename the title as the “justification of getting drunk…” Since there is nothing really wrong with alcohol when it is consumed in moderation or small amounts.
The problem isn’t alcohol, it’s the person or people who drink too much and get drunk by it. Also bare in mind that people react differently when drunk. Not every drunk person becomes aggressive or violent.
And last thing to bare in mind is that the Quran itself initially endorsed or allowed alcohol for Muslims to drink for a particular time. Indeed many Muslims from every part of the world still indulge in the act of drinking alcohol. I know of Muslims from Saudi Arabia who travel to Bahrain on the weekends just to drink alcohol since it is banned in Saudi but legal in certain parts of Bahrain. So like someone noted earlier, it’s more of a heart/sin issue rather than the substance itself. When you restrict people too much they always try to find loopholes so that they can be free, this a big problem in many parts of the Muslim world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Since there is nothing really wrong with alcohol when it is consumed in moderation or small amounts.”
Alcohol causes an increase in the level of the stress hormone, cortisol, which causes irritation and worsens your mood.
LikeLike
DefendChrist, Intellect is right. You do a bad job of defending Christ.
Your response is typical of every other apologist on the shocking and embarrassing stories of murder and mayhem in your Bible. You seem to think that because God has destroyed people in the past for their sins or that people die due to natural causes, somehow this excuses the murder of innocent people in the name of your god. You people are suffering from Biblically-inspired. madness. The Bible makes you people crazy. I really think you should see a psychiatrist if you think murdering people because God allegedly said so, including BABIES, is akin to people dying from natural causes.
Do you really want me to list the examples from your Bible showing that your god, Jesus Christ, ordered the extermination of tens of thousands of people? I’m in a rush right now, so if you really want me to list those verses, let me know and I will do so later.
Finally, on a quick note, your confusion about the Quran just shows that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse me of…talking before thinking. Where does the Quran say that Muslims can’t have women down here? Also, do you realize that heavenly wine is not the same as earthly wine? It’s really not hard to understand if you simply your head, but I know that’s hard for you Christians to do. It’s okay, though. I know it’s not your fault. 😉
LikeLike