Dave wrote:
Steve r is a wolf, he jokes of child rape by the Catholic Church.
Be warned, he is a creep

Christopher000 wrote:
Don't forget sleeves and gloves.

you obviously caught wrote:
woman's volleyball. The men are usually covered from shoulder to knee when playing. Which goes to show there is no advantage to the way the woman are attired, if you want to call it that, in their matches.

Kev wrote:
Last thing to you Steve. Do you agree with that statement? I'll tell you what, I wouldn't attend BJU. SermonAudio is a great blessing to many.

Even the teetotalers at my Church wouldn't agree with the BJU statement. Not because we use real wine at the LORDs Supper and they partake, but I think they believe Biblical wine is ummmm wine. I certainly hope they don't feel coerced to accept a bit of wine.

Kev wrote:
I can't imagine one saying yes to this, which really is the basis for this whole discussion. SC also says she doesn't believe in baptism either so maybe she would answer yes.

Kev wrote:
I am talking about biblical moderation which means not to the point where one is dulled in the senses.
mod·er·a·tion
ˌmädəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one's behavior or political opinions.
Are you gonna start grammar checking me Steve?

Kev wrote:
Great points there Christopher. Also just imagine if Christ drank wine as many passages in the Bible point towards then it would be as people have set themselves as a judge over Christ! It would also mean that if Christ turned the water into wine at the party it would be sinful, which wine was customary for Jewish weddings. People give place for their own beliefs and understanding and the Bible says "lean not on your own understanding".
Steve try to guess what I meant, I left out one word: "for".
Great points TMC

Kev wrote:
None of the ones against alcohol will answer this; " Is it sinful everyone to drink in moderation?"

Christopher000 wrote:
I love volleyball but have never watched the matches.

Christopher000 wrote:
This topic also reminds me of guns when they come up and the arguments for and against personal protection. Neither one ever goes anywhere at all.

SteveR wrote:
Do you say that because you think rebuking Church leadership during the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is acceptable because leadership would allow one families wish to not have wine? or you are defending Christians the right to drink wine in moderation?

ladybug wrote:
Well said Anne

s c wrote:
Of those who I know who defend it,they also are the most flesh-driven in their lifestyle choices.

Now, the argument that a thimble of wine can lead the weak down the wrong path is an excellent one, and one I pondered more than once. Should we give teens actual wine during the Sacrament? As an adult that never partook of the Sacrament with wine, when I did a thimble isn't a big deal, but what about teens or the weak? I am repulsed of the idea that some should be forced, coerced or even rebuked into drinking alcoholic wine

Anne wrote:
God bless you gentlemen! We had an incident a few months previous in church during communion. The tray passed our way and lo and behold there was a row of WATER AND SALTINES. My husband who is generally quiet and deals with things the same way stood and rebuked the elders and pastor right there. A husband and wife said they were fasting and couldn't eat the bread and grape juice. So my dear husband lovingly launched into the finer points of the Lord's Supper. An elder commented that there are those who see the true evils of wine and would leave any church that served wine. When asked what would stop us from serving Coke and pizza bites at the next communion if we didn't have to follow Christ's example there was an lot of awkward silence. In the following weeks the pastor and elders did a study on the use of wine. We now serve wine during communion and look forward to the day when we will drink it with Christ in paradise!

Mike wrote:
It is curious that a court thinks it has authority to regulate immigration. That is solely the responsibility of Congress. None of the court's interpretation is based on who has authority, so if Congress wants to enforce Trump's executive order, it would seem it could overrule the court's hold. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Congress to assert itself.

So whats the game?