I think he would judge that to be cheating somehow, as turning stones to bread would have been.
He also helped get others drunk. Remember the wedding at Canae? He turned water into wine, and the steward was very clear that it was good wine, the kind that makes people unable to tell good win from bad in later servings. Regardless whether he got drunk himself or not, he certainly didn’t object to drunkenness per se, at least in an appropriate context.
Of course, there was also a recognition that too much drunkenness is a bad thing: Quite a few Old Testament figures got shitfaced drunk, with bad results (Noah and Lot both come to mind). But that doesn’t really say anything about drinking in moderation.
It’s off topic, of course, but I could never buy the whole Lot-drunkenly-impregnates-his-daughters bit. Even for a myth it’s an obvious lie.
Sure, but what’s the point ? If you want to be sober, it might be there’s a simpler course of action than divine intervention. To whit: drinking water. The whole point of drinking alcohol is to get smashed. It’s certainly not the taste…
Is that a whoosh? Or a deliberate joke? Because beer and wine are very tasty, and most hard liquors have interesting flavours (even if you don’t happen to like the taste).
Yeah, I was a Bud Light chugging punk freshman too once.
I’m just repeating what I’ve heard.
For example, this article allegedly appeared in Scientific American:
I’m just saying there’s probably a reason non-alcoholic whiskeys, wines or beers are not a huge hit even when they exist 
I’ve never even heard of a non-alcoholic whiskey. The stuff is 40% alcohol, so taking that out would leave…what? Non-alcoholic beer is crap because there just isn’t enough demand for it to cause brewers to compete with each other to make it better.
edited to add: Whiskey gets it flavor from being aged in barrels-no alcohol, no aging.
On the other hand, non-alcoholic wine is a huge industry. Except it’s usually just called “juice”.
Sounds a little defensive, no? Like a first reaction to an intervention?
RE: Non-alcoholic beer.
For myself, alcohol in and of itself has a very specific flavor. Removing that element from beer, while it tastes somewhat similar – it’s just not beer. Nor nearly as good as the real McCoy the few times I’ve had it.
It takes at least 3 or 4 beers before I really feel anything anyway, and that’s on an empty stomach. When I drink beer, it’s usually only one or two and with a meal – and delicious.
So, the market for “bread juice” is somewhat small, I imagine. [khack]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this whole “alcohol is sinful” things seems to be an entirely puritan (protestant?) movement, that stuck around for a while, and only now seems to be giving way to whatever counts as reason, among the uber-religious.
I get that over-indulging in any mind-altering substance isn’t a good idea. But a “sin”, forbidding entrance into heaven from the perspective of the bible (OT and NT), just doesn’t jive. I can’t imagine Jesus himself not ever experiencing some sort of intoxication. It’s clear He drank wine a’plenty from the bible, and despite His divinity (or not), it only seems inevitable that He’d had one too many. And probably often.
All good Jews get drunk on Purim.
Not Puritan. They imbibed also. More like a Wesleyan thing in reaction to the alcohol problems of those Wesley ministered to.
As to the frequency of JC’s having one too many, I could see it happening once as a learning experience. But when He learned His limits, He stayed within them.
My understanding is that it was largely a womens movement, in the hope of reducing the number of cases of husbands beating their wives, and so on. I’m sure that it was lead by churches, but that’s because it was a grass-roots movement, which probably formed in the one location where women could meet socially and organize events – the church.
Fair enough. But wine, being wine – if that was the drink of the day – when in Rome…
The Temperence movement in America began very specifically as an anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant political platform in the early 19th Century. Prior to that, literary and musical refences to the evil of John Barleycorn and demon rum are pretty rare. British moralists of the Georgian period might comment that the poor craved gin and the strongest ales, but didn’t begrudge anybody a good cheap beer now and then.
So many interesting subjects to consider. Did Gaia have a yeast infection? Did Muhammed fuck Aisha in the ass? Did Abraham jack off in the woods? Did Hara Krishna drink his own piss?