Just another thought on the drunkeness thing. I think that “drunkeness” probaly does not pertain to moderate usage of alcohol, or even occasionally tying one on. My guess is that the Biblical proscriptions are against chronic drunkeness. (ie alcoholism) which, no question, has a thoroughly destructive effect on the alcoholic as well as those around him. Now, in ancient times, people obviously didn’t know about the physiological and genetic causes of alcoholism, but they knew it wasn’t good for anybody. We understand it now as a disease, but once the physiological aspects of the disease are treated (i.e. once the individual in question has “dried out”) there is no question that faith can be a very strong componant in keeping people sober. It’s a pillar of 12 step programs. I think that if a person is in recovery, and not actively in the grips of the disease, they can, at least to some degree, take some moral responsibility for their answers. The desire to relapse may not be controllable, but the mechanisms to deal with those temptations are accessible to the individual and he can make a moral choice about whether or not to avail himself of them. He knows that he can call his sponsor. He knows that he has a moral obligation to call his sponsor if he’s craving a drink. He is responsible for his own recovery. I would argue then, that “drunkeness” (as it was naiively understood in Biblical times) was a “sin” in the sense that it had profoundly negative effects on mind, body and relationships, and it was believed that a person had a t least some personal control over those kinds of behaviors and choices. I think that these are still boyth reasonable assumption to make, and that they are consistent with other similar Pauline proscriptions. There are good reasons to frown on heavy drinking. It’s not an arbitrary caveat.
I would agree. By “having a drink,” I meant in responsible levels.
And chalk me up for Zingers over Twinkies.