Talk:Christian views on alcohol

Patron Saint of Beer

Was claimed to be St Adrian, but he's not listed here. Googling shows that an earlier Adrian may well be the correct one, so for the time being, I've unlinked this to avoid confusion. Rodhullandemu 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to note it, but I fixed this. The claim was correct, but the link was pointing to the wrong person. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

POV?

User:Rursus put two POV flags on this sentence from the article: "Since nearly all Christians base their views of alcohol, in whole or in part, on their understanding of what the Bible says about it, the Bible is the single most important source on the subject, followed by Christian tradition." The given reasoning was that "the Bible is the single most important source on the subject" is "Trying to sneak in a POV!!" and that tradition being the second most important source on the topic is POV because "protestants don't generally adher to a 'tradition'."

How could this sentence be better expressed and with more neutrality? It is well qualified enough with "nearly all" and "in whole or in part". Who is being excluded? What POV is being pushed? It seems to me to fit Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican and Protestants pretty well.

Also, Protestants most certainly do adhere to tradition. Some fundamentalists (speciously) claim to have "no creed by Christ" (though how they think about Christ is remarkably well aligned with existing traditions), but nearly all evangelicals, for instance, explicitly adhere to some form of tradition like Nicea and Chalcedon on the Trinity. Moreover, different groups like Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, etc. have developed their own the traditions (including confessions, creeds, and catechisms) which are viewed as having subsidiary authority and are tests of orthodoxy. Sola scriptura and Prima scriptura do not mean "no tradition"; rather, they mean Scripture is the final, authoritative word. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I revised it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

SBC

The prohibitionist section at the end lists the SBC as prohibitionists. But the linked 2006 statement doesn't seem to me to be prohibitionist. It does not, for instance, say that the Bible prohibits alcohol. It only says that the Bible warns about the dangers of alcohol. Moreover, it claims empirical data, which also sounds abstentionist (though it could be a supplement to a prohibitionist position). On the other hand, it also says that alcoholic beverages shouldn't be manufactured, which sounds prohibitionist, but as a matter of logic does not have to be. Thus, one can hold that use of alcohol is imprudent in our day and age, and that for the same reason it is imprudent to manufacture or sell alcohol. Pruss (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right that the second reference for the SBC could be taken to be either abstentionist or prohibitionist and doesn't detail exactly what the SBC believes the biblical position is, but the first reference, which AFAICT has not been repealed or superseded, calls the use/sale of alcohol "unholy" and "folly and sin", not just imprudent or unwise. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Secular temperance movement

User:Chris Henniker added these sentences to the section on the temperance movement:

At the same time, there were secular temperance organisations connected to the labour movement. A good example would be the Scottish Prohibition Party, founded by Bob Stewart, who followed the British Labour Party on all other issues. There was a Marxist offshoot called the Prohibition and Reform Party, which later became part of the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1920.

I removed them (without much of an edit message -- sorry), not because they are false (there are no sources given here, but I don't have reason to suspect their veracity), but because they constitute a factoid of minor relevance to the topic of that section and the article as a whole. Just trying to keep it focused as a summary rather than exhaustive detail. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention of secular temperence movements, just to give the bigger picture. The temperance movement was even connected to early feminism as well, so it should be explored. Chris Henniker (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's fine for them to be explored in the larger web of articles related to the temperance movement. I just don't think that they should be explored here in this article which is, per the title, concerned with Christian views and which is already quite long. (Consider: Why not also include Muslim views, Judaic views, Hindu views, etc.? These would also be beyond the stated scope.) Perhaps in Temperance movement or a new "Main article" or "See also" to a subsection thereof, e.g., Secular views of the temperance movement? --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)