Common Sense Alcohol Reform

  • Thread starter Thread starter AndrewW94
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Kei said:
What was Jesus’ goals in making and drinking wine, was it not enjoyment?

Obviously we should not get drunk or “intoxicated”, but we should not get too strict here.
Click to expand...
I like a beer buzz as much as the next guy, but I’m not saying it’s ordained.
 
RandomAlias said:
It could still be true.
Click to expand...
No. We’re not Puritan. We follow what the Catholic Church has decided and YOU are not in a position to unilaterally declare that something is sinful or wrong. The Catechism doesn’t side with you on this matter.
RandomAlias said:
If they legalize marijuana, you can replace your cigar with a joint.
Click to expand...
I’m not letting you off the hook so easy! The Church doesn’t believe in recreational drug use. I’ll continue enjoying my tobacco 😒🚬

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/to-puff-or-not-to-puff#.WrlexiIpDYU
 
Last edited:
It does baffle me that weed is haram but tobacco is kosher. Nicotine gets you high and does thc.
 
Nicotine doesn’t make you lose the use of reason. Granted alcohol does too, but (from what I’ve been told) it’s a lot harder to use pot without getting high than it is to use alcohol without getting drunk.
 
Cruciferi said:
I’m not letting you off the hook so easy! The Church doesn’t believe in recreational drug use. I’ll continue enjoying my tobacco
Click to expand...
I am glad you caught that. I implied (incorrectly) that legalization makes it right. Legality certainly does not makes something right, as we see for example with abortion.

Tobacco is an interesting case. It was not known to Christendom until about 1500. Christopher Columbus learned of it from the Native Americans, and soon it was introduced to Europe and thence to all the world.

When it first appeared on the scene, I wonder if the Church immediately accepted it with the now-familiar justification that it is not expressly prohibited in the Bible. The Church Fathers and early Councils were silent on it. I mean, how could they have said anything against it, when they had never heard of it?

How did the Bishops and theologians in those days apply the concept of natural law to the idea of inhaling the smoke of burning leaves? I mean, the purpose of lungs, the purpose for which God created lungs, is to breathe air. Breathing smoke is contrary to nature. This should be plain to see, for those who have eyes to see.

Without carrying out a rigorous historical study, I can only guess that there were voices in the Church who said “This is unnatural. This is disordered (in the sense that it goes against the natural order). Therefore it is evil.” Sadly, they were either ignored or overruled.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Last edited:
And another thing about pot smoke–someone exposed second hand can still get high (whether or not they want to–exposure in places like hotel rooms [this just happened, although I was able to pass through the cloud to my room without ill-effect], apartments, or other such shared-living locations), while second-hand nicotine smoke just smells nasty but doesn’t get anyone high.
 
Well when the waters hardly safe to drink I can’t blame them for turning to beer 😬
 
QwertyGirl said:
The purpose of guns is to kill. That isn’t the purpose of alcohol.
Click to expand...
How do you determine the purpose of something? There can be the purpose of the maker and the purpose of the user.

Some guns are manufactured, bought, used and intended solely for target shooting. Many guns are owned solely as a collectors item.

Numbers wise very few guns held by private citizens are used to kill. Government guns are a different story. So if guns only purpose is to kill then most fail to achieve their purpose. I know plenty of people with multiple firearms and not a single one has achieved the purpose you claim guns exist for.
 
This is one place I’ll agree with the anti gun folks on. Guns sole purpose for creation is killing. You’re either training to kill with it, killing food/pests with it, or killing a human with it.

Where I disagree is that sometimes folks need killed. Not all killings are unnecessary, or even unjust or immoral.
 
I wouldn’t agree with that…

Guns launch metal at high speeds via a gunpowder explosion. That’s what they are made to do.

Where those bullets are aimed depends upon the situation.

As said up-thread, I would say the majority of guns in the US have never even been pointed at another person in serious threat, let alone shot or killed someone.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Guns launch metal at high speeds via a gunpowder explosion.
Click to expand...
To penetrate soft tissue and cause damage.

Target shooting is training to hit where you’re aiming.

So you can hit the more lethal areas on a living organism.

Only my shotguns have drawn blood on foul, but every rifle and pistol I have is set up and practiced with to ventilate anyone who enters my house who shouldn’t be in there.
 
Last edited:
That can certainly be an aim (horrible pun i’m sorry) of firearm ownership, but becoming competent with a firearm can be another skill one learns for recreation and general utility, like carpentry et al.

Certainly, the end use/only serious situation falls into the
JanSobieskiIII said:
To penetrate soft tissue and cause damage.

Target shooting is training to hit where you’re aiming.

So you can hit the more lethal areas on a living organism.
Click to expand...
but not all people own forearms purely for home defense- 3-gunning, hunting, and just plinking are all legitimate and healthy pastimes.
 
I don’t disagree. I just don’t think it’s fair to blow off the fact that guns were invented to make killing people easier than using a bow or sword.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top