Nephate

The "VIRTUALLY UNIVERSAL" "ABSOLUTELY UNANIMOUS" "UNDISPUTED" "BROAD CONSENSUS" "ESTABLISHED VIEW"

So they say. Dare I question them?

Important facts DELETED from Christianity and alcohol.

"If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him..." John 11:48

Here see for yourself what was deleted:

DELETED: eating with ceremonially defiled hands does not refer to drinking (Matthew 15:2,19-20; Mark 7:3-5)

Removed: "'Moderationists' and others may acknowledge that the passage about eating with ceremonially defiled hands cannot be convincingly applied as a defense of taking drugs like heroin or cocaine. The passage about eating with ceremonially unwashed hands mentions neither an excuse for drinking, nor mentions an excuse for taking any other type of intoxicating thing." View Scriptures View Changes

DELETED: "Neutrality disputed — See talk page"

Everyone says neutrality is undisputed. May I even question if everyone says it? NO, because everyone says NO. :-) View Changes

DELETED: B.C., ALL TABLES are full of vomit and filth (Isaiah 28:7-8) They say "BROAD CONSENSUS" must be right!

Removed: "Drinking in the time before Christ became decidedly widespread, as Isaiah complained, 'all tables are full of vomit and filth.'" (Isaiah 28:7-8) Instead it now has the "UNDISPUTED" POV: "The Hebraic opinion of wine in the time before Christ was decidedly positive..." View Talk View Changes

Hmmm. "Hebraic opinion of wine ... decidedly positive..." Is the meaning in the article clear? "Hebraic opinion" -> practices the article claims are decidedly encouraged by the Old Testament itself, OR "Hebraic opinion" -> practices encouraged by many Hebrew people who disregarded the Holy Scripture? Why do some users resist the call to be specific? The Scripture itself did not approve of the widespread practice: "all tables are full of vomit and filth" and even "the priest and the prophet" had come under the influence. View Scriptures

Here comes the excuse on the talk page: "In short, the broad consensus view of this matter is rightly represented in the article..." BROAD CONSENSUS. Dare I question them, or dare I question "the priest and the prophet together"? When concerned parents question their rebellious children who were caught drug-taking, the rebels love to quote their old excuse: BUT EVERYONE DOES IT.

DELETED: Dark Ages not the most enlightened period

Removed: "The Dark Ages were not exactly the most consistently enlightened period of history. Some people hold that for 1,800 years of church history, Christians consumed alcoholic beverages as a common part of everyday life..." Instead it now has the "UNDISPUTED" POV: "Throughout the first 1,800 years of church history, Christians consumed..." View Changes

"The Rule of St. Benedict" (XL.): says of abstainers, "let them know that they will have their special reward." "Although we read [from earlier than Benedict] that wine is not at all proper for monks, yet, because monks in our times cannot be persuaded of this, let us agree to this, at least, that we do not drink to satiety..." So why should the article use Benedict's reluctant concession to the declining standards of the monks of his day to demonstrate and excuse the "universal" practice of drinking for 1800 years - no less?

DELETED: some sholars say 'wine' unfermented, but others think...

Removed: "Throughout the first 1,800 years of church history, Christians nearly always used 'wine' (some scholars say it was unfermented, but others think fermented grape juice) in ... the ... Lord's Supper." Instead it now has merely the "UNDISPUTED" POV: "Throughout ... church history, Christians consumed alcoholic beverages ... and nearly always used wine in ... the ... Lord's Supper." View Changes

The excuse provided for deleting it: "Reverting haphazard revisions which were made in order to neutralize (here, unnecessarily) the introduction to this article. This minority position does not warrant 5 roadblocks in the lead, if any." Dare a bullied "minority position" approach the sacred ground of the lead paragraph? But I wonder where else in the article is one allowed to dispute the "UNDISPUTED" POV claim to be THE historical view!

DELETED: Taverns: Synod of Laodicea (circa 363 AD)

Removed: "The Synod of Laodicea (circa 363 AD) in Canon XXIV. ruled: 'No one of the priesthood, from presbyters to deacons, and so on in the ecclesiastical order to subdeacons, readers, singers, exorcists, door-keepers, or any of the class of the Ascetics, ought to enter a tavern.' Synod of Laodicea, Canon XXIV. Likewise, this synod in Canon LV. ruled: 'NEITHER members of the priesthood nor of the clergy, nor yet laymen, may club together for drinking entertainments.' Synod of Laodicea, Canon LV." View Talk View Changes

DELETED: Taverns: Quinisext Council in Trullo (692 AD)

Removed: "The Quinisext Council in Trullo (692 AD) in Canon IX. ruled: 'Let no cleric be permitted to keep a "public house." For if it be not permitted to enter a tavern, much more is it forbidden to serve others in it and to carry on a trade which is unlawful for him. But if he shall have done any such thing, either let him desist or be deposed.'" View Talk View Changes