Preach it brother.
Protecting our 1st Amendment Rights
- Thread starter Phil Elliott
- Start date
Potential reform coming out of all this:
Look for a push to change in the churches that use one cup for the wine and everybody's spitty mouth touches it. Some congregations may upset tradition and go with the many little bitty individual cups, or have people just dip the bread in the wine so nobody's mouth touches the cup.
This will cause great consternation and uproar among some hard-core traditionalists in the one-cup churches. Could even cause some mini-schisms if people don't keep their eyes on the big picture.
Look for a push to change in the churches that use one cup for the wine and everybody's spitty mouth touches it. Some congregations may upset tradition and go with the many little bitty individual cups, or have people just dip the bread in the wine so nobody's mouth touches the cup.
This will cause great consternation and uproar among some hard-core traditionalists in the one-cup churches. Could even cause some mini-schisms if people don't keep their eyes on the big picture.
Austin_Bill
2,500+ Posts
I saw a reference to a German church recently causing an outbreak because they didn’t follow the rules?
Yep. The grape juice instead of actual (fermented) wine, and prohibition in general, came out of the nativist and womens' rights movements in the late 1800s. As far as I know, prohibition was foreign to Christianity before that time. The idea that a good Christian shouldn't consume any alcohol (not just refrain from getting drunk) would have sounded absurd to just about any preacher, cleric, parishioner, church lady, etc. before around the late 1800s or so. It would have sounded absurd to the 12 Apostles. It sounds a bit absurd to me here in 2020 for that matter...
Paraphrase only--'I came eating (meat) and drinking (wine) and they called me a glutton and a drunkard.' Sounds like whomever said that (or something like that) drank some alcohol, at least on occasion.
On edit--here it is, from The Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter 11:
"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."
Def'n of "winebibber" from Dictionary.com--a person who drinks much wine. Just goes to show that nothing will satisfy some people... They'll rake you over the coals no matter what you do.
Last edited:
They claim they were following the rules. Not sure what the truth is.
If someone chooses not to drink, that's fine. It's certainly not a requirement. However, I don't see how someone can claim the divinity of Christ and say that alcohol consumption is inherently sinful. Jesus was certainly a drinker. And let's remember that in his first miracle, he provided wine to people who had already been drinking and surely had at least some buzz going.
Over here, there is pretty much no connection between Christianity and avoiding booze. Some of the best beer in Europe is made by clergy in monasteries. They also make wines and liquors.
Depends on which day we are talking about as to what the rules were. They do tend to change from day to day.
Over here, things have been more structured and easier to follow. Changes aren't coming everyday. When changes come at the federal level, Merkel typically makes a national address and explains them. It's a big deal. There is a fair amount of discretion at the state levels, so they make rules as well. They're usually announced by the state minister-president (sorta like governors or prime ministers at the state level). It's also worth noting that the media here is a lot less sloppy. They aren't out to ruin Merkel or the state minister-presidents, so they actually do their jobs. They make changes known to the public and explain them pretty well. I don't even speak German beyond the basics, but I still have a pretty good idea of what the rules are.
Remember who we're talking about. Germans are militant about knowing what the rules are and following them, which can be good or bad. They don't wing it. If they don't know the rules on something, they'll freak out until they know what they are.
My guess is that the church knew the rules and probably was following them but that one or two members blew them off or just got a little sloppy.
Thanks. Gave me a new title.
Horns11
10,000+ Posts
I can't speak for other denominations, but Welch (the Methodist) invented the juice during the height of the temperance movement. Methodists have since altered their stance on why it's grape juice to be more about helping those who are trying to recover from alcohol addiction, not the sinful nature of drinking wine in general. Heck, some of the biggest winos I know are Methodist soccer moms.
I am in no way in favor of prohibition. In fact my great uncle died after drinking bad liquor during prohibition. Did you know government purposely put bad liquor in the black market to give it a bad name? It’s possible that the US government killed my great uncle at the age of 21.
With that said, drinking prior to prohibition was really bad. Without illicit drugs available, maybe it was no worse than today compared to drugs and alcohol combined, but the alcohol was more widely available than drugs and alcohol today.
Prohibition was apparently the “coronavirus lock down” version of its day - way overboard to the danger.
With that said, drinking prior to prohibition was really bad. Without illicit drugs available, maybe it was no worse than today compared to drugs and alcohol combined, but the alcohol was more widely available than drugs and alcohol today.
Prohibition was apparently the “coronavirus lock down” version of its day - way overboard to the danger.
Austin_Bill
2,500+ Posts
It was just the Irish, it's always the Irish. Thought English history would have taught you that.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
It was all the fault of the Post-Millennial Pietists of the North East who were descended from the Puritans. They secularized in the late 1800s/early 1900s and turned their attention from spiritual salvation to cleaning up society. Very moralistic but without the religion. They are still that way.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Children of the Quarn
I get that. The temperance movement didn't come out if nowhere. People were abusing alcohol a lot. However, banning alcohol (like banning drugs) didn't alleviate the underlying problem. It only put the drinkers (moderate drinkers and the slobbering drunks) into a power struggle with government. It didn't go well for government.
For the most part, yes. It's largely ineffective, wastes money, and led to a massive increase in government power and weakening of individual rights.
My understanding is that rye was pretty decent and prevalent prior to prohibition. Canadian whiskeys were also popular. Beer was more regional and even local. Speaking of which, here in Texas there was a culture clash during prohibition between many ‘Anglo-Americans’ (who were actually probably more Scottish and Irish In origin than true Anglo/English) on the one hand and Texans of German, Bohemian, and Mexican descent on the other hand. Many of the former bought into the prohibition propaganda. Most Germans, Czechs, and Tejanos would have none of that nonsense. Texas has a history of local control to deal with this sort of split. If you look at a county map of Texas dry counties, you can still see the split.
Horns11
10,000+ Posts
Some music journal posted an article from several flu seasons ago that when a choir of 50 people sings for 5 minutes, it creates kind of an aerosol blanket that extends 37 feet in front of the choir and lingers for about 15-30 minutes before dissipation. So if you imagine a church congregation as the choir...
I'll try to find the article.
I'll try to find the article.
Austin_Bill
2,500+ Posts
I knew there was benefits to sitting in the back besides the fact that no one can see you sleeping.
4th_floor
Dude, where's my laptop?
I agree that we should all consider worshiping in smarter ways. I am currently attending services over the internet and my church has decided to make this ministry permanent. However, I disagree that traditional in-person worship should be made illegal. Who are you to dictate worship behavior?
Our church is operating 25% capacity by seating every other pew, plus 6 ft between families in the same pew. Masks and hand sanitizer are required. Reservations are made online. Since starting about 4 weeks ago, I don’t believe we have had a service at full 25% capacity. Lots of people are voluntarily staying at home. Same for the office. We opened 2 weeks ago for those who wanted to come to the office and it’s been about 25% full.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
That is interesting and very believable. One thing I have read about is how improving ventilation and air flow systems could go a long way into making indoor gatherings less likely to spread infection. Would be good for any type of disease.
Either just increase air flow or have fans to direct it. Even better have systems pull air out of the top and send out the roof and pull in from outside along the bottom.
Makes me wonder about the German church. My speculation is that they had a long service with little to no air flow. The aerosol blanket just sat there over a long period of time.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
