Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Ayuoobi

Getting Drunk Was Considered a Sin in Christianity

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Getting Drunk Was Considered a Sin in Medieval Christianity

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

TIL that getting drunk was considered a sin in Medieval Christianity. Alcohol itself was considered permissible, but drinking to the point of inebriation was considered a subset of the deadly sin of gluttony.  The full reddit thread on r/askhistorians can be found below, although I’ll quote the relevant parts:

 

Americans today (I understand ideas about alcoholism and its treatment can be quite different) tend to think of alcoholism as an addiction or even a disease. This was not so in the Middle Ages. Inebrietas–inebriety or drunkenness–was normatively a sin, a subset of the Deadly Sin of gluttony or overconsumption.

We must separate the rhetoric of preachers from the daily lives of medieval people (including, presumably, many of those preachers). An evening at a formal or informal tavern was the heart of socializing for a lot of urban people. It’s not for nothing the tavern was derided as the “chapel of the devil”; it was the secular parallel for social life to the Church and religious civic gatherings. As with today, not everyone would get drunk, and even fewer of those would get drunk so often and compulsively as to compare to modern alcoholism. And of course, the role of alcohol in the display of battle prowess and noble/royal power is well known to anyone who read Beowulf in high school….

…But in the background, and increasingly pushed by preachers and didactic authors over the 14th through 16th centuries, was the point that drunkenness inherently represented overconsumption, a focus on the material world and personal pleasure that distracted from God. It was a sin. And in both prescriptive theoretical sources and actual criminal records, medieval people knew and experienced the costs of inebriety.

In theory, drunkenness would lead to other sins. It loosened the tongue and mind, resulting in a rise to wrath. Naturally in women in particular, it heated the body and aroused it to lust. It led the drunk person to forget about others, greed. And so on. Meanwhile, coroners’ rolls from England and court records from French and German cities attest handsomely to the fights, assaults, and murders inside taverns and spilling onto the streets outside...

Click here to continue reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was? It still is. Intoxication is a sin. It's in the Bible. That's why a lot of Christians don't touch alcohol at all. 

But that doesn't mean that addiction, just like obesity, isn't also a medical condition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is forbidden aron and his sons were forbidden in the Old Testament also book of proverbs (20,21,23,29-35 etc)has many examples and in the New Testament Paul warned believers against drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18), and declared that deacons should not be "addicted to much wine" (1 Timothy 3:8). He counseled Titus that the older women should not be "slaves to drink" (Titus 2:3).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 7:46 AM, father said:

proverbs (20,21,23,29-35 etc

On bible gateway, proverbs only goes up to 31. And I did not find anything about drunkness in proverbs 29 or 30. But good contribution anyway.

 

On 12/5/2017 at 7:22 AM, notme said:

That's why a lot of Christians don't touch alcohol at all. 

To be honest, Christians disobey most of what's in the Bible, including religious ones because of their erroneous assertion that Christ abrogated the whole of the Law (as opposed to parts of it, like the Sabbath). If we started judging Christians by the Bible, they'd be in a lot of trouble. To some extent the same is true of Muslims, although I think Muslims have done a much better job of upkeeping the outward aspect of the Law and at least would in principle agree to in. Christians, unfortunately, have rebelled against the Lord their God and have made lawful what God has forbidden and forbade that which God has made lawful.

Point is I don't really see a meaningful correlation anymore between "what's in the Bible" and why Christians act the way they do. Most (Protestant) Christians are modernists anyways and believe in satanic notions like so-called freedom and liberty which is actually slavery to the nafs, separation of Church and State, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2017 at 11:48 PM, Ayuoobi said:

On bible gateway, proverbs only goes up to 31. And I did not find anything about drunkness in proverbs 29 or 30. But good contribution anyway.

To be honest, Christians disobey most of what's in the Bible, including religious ones because of their erroneous assertion that Christ abrogated the whole of the Law (as opposed to parts of it, like the Sabbath). If we started judging Christians by the Bible, they'd be in a lot of trouble. To some extent the same is true of Muslims, although I think Muslims have done a much better job of upkeeping the outward aspect of the Law and at least would in principle agree to in. Christians, unfortunately, have rebelled against the Lord their God and have made lawful what God has forbidden and forbade that which God has made lawful.

Point is I don't really see a meaningful correlation anymore between "what's in the Bible" and why Christians act the way they do. Most (Protestant) Christians are modernists anyways and believe in satanic notions like so-called freedom and liberty which is actually slavery to the nafs, separation of Church and State, etc. 

That is because they have proofs for the abrogation of the entire law from their own Bible. Some legalist Christians argue otherwise, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ayuoobi said:

To be honest, Christians disobey most of what's in the Bible, including religious ones because of their erroneous assertion that Christ abrogated the whole of the Law (as opposed to parts of it, like the Sabbath).

True with regard to old testament laws, but the prohibition of intoxication is in the New testament, specifically, in one of the letters of Paul. I can find it if you'd like to see the quote. Practicing Christians consider it a sin to get drunk, just like they consider it a sin to have intimate relations outside of marriage. That some people sin doesn't make it not a sin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with thinking Muslim vs Christian when it comes to morality issues, is more Sharia vs democracy. 

Alcohol is the number one problem in the US of A, Canada too. The White house can call themselves Christian, but democracy actually run itself into the ground. Christians have to remain above it all. I don't live in a country where everybody does the same religious thing at the same time. More atheists are pushing against anything religious. Crosses cut off of church steeples because they are found to be offensive by some. It's getting really stupid. Christians can't fight against democracy. They can't even stand their ground on their ground.  A baker in the States is being charged for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because it goes against his religious beliefs. It's all over the news, he's a horrible person. 

Getting drunk still is a sin. Drinking alcohol is not. When we cleaned out my Mother in law's house we found a 4 oz bottle of Jagermiester, half full, years old, in the medicine cabinet. By the teaspoon it's been a remedy for a sore throat. Now you will find Jagermiester in 40 oz bottles, normally sided with a case of Red Bull. Alcohol has been taken out of medicine for the sake of profit. It's gone from cure to cause. 

For the christianish, it doesn't matter, (they figure they're somehow saved already), but for real Christians it does. Paul knew this, slack laws was part of Roman rule. he said, "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient, all things are lawful, but I will not be under the power of any." Definitely speaks of addictions. He also states that drunkards will not go to Heaven. He teaches us to be in the world but not part of it. 

"Alcoholism" is a misnomer, it's not a disease. It's called a disease so pharma and the medical industry can get in on the proceeds. It's not a virus one can catch, it comes from repeated drunkenness, it's self inflicted recreation. Real Christians can have no part in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2017 at 4:55 AM, Sumerian said:

That is because they have proofs for the abrogation of the entire law from their own Bible.

I have seen explicit passages where Nabi Isa (as) says he has not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The matter of abrogating the law came up after Christ was raised to the heavens and was a matter of debate amongst the apostles (see acts of the apostles.) Basically, it was [edited] Paul who argued the Law was to be abolished in opposition to Jesus' actual disciples who knew this was blasphemy.

Obviously, as Pauline Christianity became dominant, Paul's ijtihad became "inspired by the Spirit" and so I suppose that becomes hujjah for them.

Edited by notme
Can't allow cursing of prominent figures of other religions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

How did the disciples retaliate against this blasphemy?

The only remaining records that were not purged for burned for containing heresy are those which support the Pauline line. Obviously, if Paul and the disciples remained at odds, the disciples' interpretation would be authoritative over Pauls. So the records remaining today claim that the disciples accepted Paul's abrogation of the Law, despite their initial hesitation.

But the "Jewish-Christian" sects that remained for centuries never accepted this. They continued to follow the Law. This is proof that at least some early Christians did not accept Paul's blasphemy, likely some of them original 12 Disciples as their influence was dominant over the Jewish-Christian sects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ayuoobi said:

The only remaining records that were not purged for burned for containing heresy are those which support the Pauline line. Obviously, if Paul and the disciples remained at odds, the disciples' interpretation would be authoritative over Pauls. So the records remaining today claim that the disciples accepted Paul's abrogation of the Law, despite their initial hesitation.

But the "Jewish-Christian" sects that remained for centuries never accepted this. They continued to follow the Law. This is proof that at least some early Christians did not accept Paul's blasphemy, likely some of them original 12 Disciples as their influence was dominant over the Jewish-Christian sects.

The odd thing is you mention you get this from the Acts of the Apostles. The book attributed to Luke around 64AD, It includes the introduction of Paul, the conversion of Paul, and the missionary trips that the Apostles took on, with Paul. Paul and Barnabas spent much time together yet I see nothing...anywhere...that would call anything Paul did as blasphemy. If Paul had proven to be an enemy, certainly Luke would have warned first, then Barnabas. 

I'd bet your sources are more Islamic than Biblical, the bias certainly seems to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 9:49 PM, Son of Placid said:

The odd thing is you mention you get this from the Acts of the Apostles. The book attributed to Luke around 64AD, It includes the introduction of Paul, the conversion of Paul, and the missionary trips that the Apostles took on, with Paul. Paul and Barnabas spent much time together yet I see nothing...anywhere...that would call anything Paul did as blasphemy. If Paul had proven to be an enemy, certainly Luke would have warned first, then Barnabas. 

I'd bet your sources are more Islamic than Biblical, the bias certainly seems to be.

Acts of the Apostles is where the dispute regarding the Law is featured. Luke was of the Pauline school and wrote in Greek. The people who opposed Paul wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew - the language of Christ himself. Don't you think it's kind of funny how we don't have any extant records that are considered "inspired" and part of the Biblical cannon that are in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus? That itself should tell you something. What you're getting is the Greek interpretation of Jesus, not the interpretation of the actual people who lived with him, all of whom continued to practice the Law according to the records we have left.

What I'm saying does not require you to accept the Islamic view. It's strictly historical that we don't have Aramaic records of what Jesus said verbatum, and that the vast majority of what became cannon in Christianity were from the Greek-Christian or Latin-Christian perspective. At most maybe Coptic-Christian. Where is the Aramaic? Oh yeah, all of the Christians who happened to speak Aramaic, claimed they had a gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic, and traced their lineages back to the original 12 disciples were called heretical. We're supposed to accept that the Greeks got it right, but the Hebrews living with Jesus and his disciples got it wrong. Not buying it. Too bad they burned everything the Hebrew-Christians wrote, otherwise we might be able to verify some of these claims, but for now we can only go by what the heresiographies written about the Hebrew-Christians say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:48 PM, Ayuoobi said:

On bible gateway, proverbs only goes up to 31. And I did not find anything about drunkness in proverbs 29 or 30. But good contribution anyway.

 

To be honest, Christians disobey most of what's in the Bible,And "muslims" don't with the Quran?

... including religious ones because of their erroneous assertion that Christ abrogated the whole of the Law (as opposed to parts of it, like the Sabbath). If ..

 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 7:46 AM, father said:

Yes it is forbidden aron and his sons were forbidden in the Old Testament also book of proverbs (20,21,23,29-35 etc)has many examples and in the New Testament Paul warned believers against drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18), and declared that deacons should not be "addicted to much wine" (1 Timothy 3:8). He counseled Titus that the older women should not be "slaves to drink" (Titus 2:3).

ln my concordance there is a nearly whole column long list of references about drunkenness.

Several are used as teaching-points as in: a drunk can't listen and neither were the lsraelis...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2017 at 11:00 PM, Ayuoobi said:

Acts of the Apostles is where the dispute regarding the Law is featured. Luke was of the Pauline school and wrote in Greek. The people who opposed Paul wrote in Aramaic or Hebrew - the language of Christ himself. Don't you think it's kind of funny how we don't have any extant records that are considered "inspired" and part of the Biblical cannon that are in Aramaic, the original language of Jesus? That itself should tell you something. What you're getting is the Greek interpretation of Jesus, not the interpretation of the actual people who lived with him, all of whom continued to practice the Law according to the records we have left.

What I'm saying does not require you to accept the Islamic view. It's strictly historical that we don't have Aramaic records of what Jesus said verbatum, and that the vast majority of what became cannon in Christianity were from the Greek-Christian or Latin-Christian perspective. At most maybe Coptic-Christian. Where is the Aramaic? Oh yeah, all of the Christians who happened to speak Aramaic, claimed they had a gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic, and traced their lineages back to the original 12 disciples were called heretical. We're supposed to accept that the Greeks got it right, but the Hebrews living with Jesus and his disciples got it wrong. Not buying it. Too bad they burned everything the Hebrew-Christians wrote, otherwise we might be able to verify some of these claims, but for now we can only go by what the heresiographies written about the Hebrew-Christians say.

Actually Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, thus the assumption Jesus spoke Aramaic. There were three main languages during the time of Jesus. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. The majority of Jews still spoke Hebrew so why would Jesus speak only Aramaic?.  Hebrew and Greek are still around, where's the Aramaic? Why would anybody write in a dying language? I also find it curious that someone who could speak as an infant spent the rest of His life limited to one language.

You can also get the Complete Jewish Bible online. Dr David H Stern translated it. He's a Messianic Jew. If you have conspiracy theories, he'd be the guy to ask.

The "Islamic view" of Paul is skewed.  I haven't seen any records of all these Christians that opposed Paul...names might help.  Not sure how Luke would end up back in "Pauline school" after years of following Jesus if the teaching was so diverse. Paul didn't cause a dispute over the law, he went to the council of James and said, "Come up with a law for Gentiles." He wasn't even in the council. He waited outside for the decision like everyone else. 

There were a lot of books considered heretical, probably for a reason. The Qur'an basically went through the same process with Urthman...burn the rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...