Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a Mason, but I understand there are only two qualifications to become one.
One, you must believe in god, however nebulous. Two, you must be a man of recognized good character.
I understand there are many Jewish and other than christian men in masonry.
DF
FatBaldGuy,
I am not a mason, sorry. And to bring up a tired old moth eated group like the Illuminati, is old conspiracy theory. Next, perhaps the Knights Templar.
Are you a John Bircher?
To be a Boy Scout one must believe in a supreme being. Can't they be christians?
I am not a mason, sorry. And to bring up a tired old moth eated group like the Illuminati, is old conspiracy theory. Next, perhaps the Knights Templar.
Are you a John Bircher?
To be a Boy Scout one must believe in a supreme being. Can't they be christians?
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a Mason, but I understand there are only two qualifications to become one.
One, you must believe in god, however nebulous. Two, you must be a man of recognized good character.
I understand there are many Jewish and other than christian men in masonry.
DF
There used to be one more qualification - you must be white. Of course there are black Masons, but last I checked, white Masons would not induct black Masons. Whatever - it is old tired mens clubs with secrets. Sounds fascinating.........yawn.
Presidents sworn in on freemason bible that Washington used were George Washington, Jimmy Carter, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, Warren G. Harding, and George W. Bush. Several were not masons. At least one, wasn't a good President and several were christians. Whether they were good christians is not for us to judge.
sheffield really needs all the money they can get. man the streets there are so bad you can almost consider it off roading.
No, this is purely a religious issue put forth by the fundamentalist Baptists and is an imposition on my freedom to indulge in adult behavior.[/QUOTE]
Ok,so it's a religious issue....so what? The decision is still going to be decided by the vote. The only thing thats going to affect your freedom to indulge is the vote. Those fundamentalist Baptists are citizens and have a right to express their opinions just like you. That is what makes this country great.
Ok,so it's a religious issue....so what? The decision is still going to be decided by the vote. The only thing thats going to affect your freedom to indulge is the vote. Those fundamentalist Baptists are citizens and have a right to express their opinions just like you. That is what makes this country great.
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
Kindred,
You are correct, we can't know the wines strength. Perhaps, it was exhilerating, non-alcohol wines promised in the Koran to those who enter paradise.
Wrong. Wine had enough alcohol to kill bacteria - which is enough to give you quite a buzz. The stronger it was, the better. That is one reason it (and beer) was so popular during that time.
Wine was unlike water in a puddle or pond that could be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff that could make you sick or kill you. FERMENTED wine was always safe to drink and, quite literally, EVERYBODY drank it as often as they could.
Of course, the ancients didn't know about germs. They simply knew that wine seemed to have extraordinary medicinal value. In fact, wine as a cure for all sorts of ills. Sick babies were bathed in it, for example.
quote:Originally posted by Techno62:
Baptists are citizens and have a right to express their opinions just like you. That is what makes this country great.
No, they do not have the right to prevent me from buying a bottle of wine to go with my steak on one day of the week. This is clearly a religious intrusion upon my right to pursue happiness and avoid fundementalism.
The government is literally making a law that establishes one religion over another which is exactly what the Constitution is supposed to prevent!
Is there a lawyer in the house that can explain to me how the government gets away with this?
quote:I am not a mason, sorry.
Never said you were...and why are you sorry?
quote:And to bring up a tired old moth eated group like the Illuminati, is old conspiracy theory. Next, perhaps the Knights Templar.
Yes, redirection is your only response, I understand.
quote:Are you a John Bircher?
Childiesh/foolish question.
quote:To be a Boy Scout one must believe in a supreme being. Can't they be christians?
You seem to overlook the reason I gave for masons not being able to be Christians. The boyscouts don't worship Hiram Abiff. Another attempt at redirection?
quote:Whether they were good christians is not for us to judge.
You don't have the ability nor the authority to place limitations on whom I judge. Please don't try to extend your beliefs to me.
Is this the hand your fine Christian pres. Bush placed on that masonic bible?
Attachments
Images (1)
I remember when the first alcohol vote came up last year. One rep from the beer companies in town - who also goes to church - said his neighbor that he goes to church with had a vote no sign in his yard. That same neighbor he said who lives in the Muscle Shoals city limits goes out to the Ford City package store like most of the other religious hypocrites to buy his bourbon and beer cause he's seen the neighbor in there.
quote:Originally posted by cindyalx:
I am a Sheffield resident and alcohol sales on Sunday is not what this city needs. I am also a christian and know for a fact that God is what we need.
I would like to say to you I totally respect your position, ideals, and relegious conviction. Now if I maybe the devil's advocate, Sheffield needs a tax base in a critical way. This is a college area. Someone down the line is making money by selling alcohol on Sunday's. Why can it not be our city (not like we could use the money or anything). As far as relegion goes on this issue, I believe it to be a moot point. There are so many types of relegion in our country now, but I do not believe that ANY relegion should be allowed to write the rules of this country, city, or state. If people are allowed to make their own decisions based on their own character and principles, there should be no problem. Basically saying, we should trust our own faith and a "problem" of Sunday alcohol sales should have no bearing on those who choose to drink on Sunday.
Really, I mean no disrespect. Your response is so sincere and from the heart. I respect that kind of character. And, in case you were wondering, I am NOT a drinker at all. I personally wish that alcohol could be seen as the dangerous drug that it is, and BANNED!! However, I do base my decision on Sunday sales as just straight, objective logic.
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
Presidents sworn in on freemason bible that Washington used were George Washington, Jimmy Carter, Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, Warren G. Harding, and George W. Bush. Several were not masons. At least one, wasn't a good President and several were christians. Whether they were good christians is not for us to judge.
At least TWO were not good presidents.
GoFish,
"Wrong. Wine had enough alcohol to kill bacteria - which is enough to give you quite a buzz. The stronger it was, the better. That is one reason it (and beer) was so popular during that time.
Wine was unlike water in a puddle or pond that could be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff that could make you sick or kill you. FERMENTED wine was always safe to drink and, quite literally, EVERYBODY drank it as often as they could.
Of course, the ancients didn't know about germs. They simply knew that wine seemed to have extraordinary medicinal value. In fact, wine as a cure for all sorts of ills. Sick babies were bathed in it, for example."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I assume you haven't spent much time outside the US, where sanitation is not up to US standards. When drinking whiskey or other liquer, you must always have pure water for the mixer and the ice. Whiskey is much stronger than wine (40 percent or more vs. wine with 8 to 9 percent). The alcohol is not enough to kill the germs in polluted water. Follow your suggestion and you will have dysentary for certain. This is standard found in all guides to third world locations.
"Wrong. Wine had enough alcohol to kill bacteria - which is enough to give you quite a buzz. The stronger it was, the better. That is one reason it (and beer) was so popular during that time.
Wine was unlike water in a puddle or pond that could be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff that could make you sick or kill you. FERMENTED wine was always safe to drink and, quite literally, EVERYBODY drank it as often as they could.
Of course, the ancients didn't know about germs. They simply knew that wine seemed to have extraordinary medicinal value. In fact, wine as a cure for all sorts of ills. Sick babies were bathed in it, for example."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I assume you haven't spent much time outside the US, where sanitation is not up to US standards. When drinking whiskey or other liquer, you must always have pure water for the mixer and the ice. Whiskey is much stronger than wine (40 percent or more vs. wine with 8 to 9 percent). The alcohol is not enough to kill the germs in polluted water. Follow your suggestion and you will have dysentary for certain. This is standard found in all guides to third world locations.
FatBaldGayGuy,
I answered your question directly. When you mentioned Illuminati, you opened an entirely new line of inquiry. I asked if were a Bircher, because they are the only ones I know still following that conspiratorial line. Perhaps, you are of a new group -- vegan, leftist, FBI agents for all I know or care. I just don't have the time to keep up with such groups.
Whether you attempt to judge or not doesn't mean a thing.
As a parting shot, you offer an obscene gesture. But, did you have to use such a notorious photoshopped job, quite unprofessional. I shall not stoop to such.
I answered your question directly. When you mentioned Illuminati, you opened an entirely new line of inquiry. I asked if were a Bircher, because they are the only ones I know still following that conspiratorial line. Perhaps, you are of a new group -- vegan, leftist, FBI agents for all I know or care. I just don't have the time to keep up with such groups.
Whether you attempt to judge or not doesn't mean a thing.
As a parting shot, you offer an obscene gesture. But, did you have to use such a notorious photoshopped job, quite unprofessional. I shall not stoop to such.
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:
http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...07260316/1011/NEWS01
I sure hope Sheffield residents will rally against the religious right and free themselves from the shackles of fundamentalism by voting for alcohol sales on Sunday.
Sunday "blue laws" are so outrageously outdated and puritan that I am constantly amazed they still exist in these enlightened times.
If Sheffield citizens vote against the measure, then they deserve all the misery their economy will send their way.
Its not just the Religous Right it is also a few paid folks that have the power to fight it.Remember what conservative means!!It means no change!! When you vote conservative, you vote for no change.
Further information: right-wing and political spectrum
In western democracies, 'conservative' and 'right-wing' are often used interchangeably, as near-synonyms. That is not always accurate, but it has more than incidental validity. Certainly the opposition is in both cases the same: the political left. (Although left-wing groups and individuals may have conservative social and cultural attitudes, they are not generally accepted, by self-identified conservatives, as part of the same movement). On economic policy and the economic system, conservatives and the right generally support the free market, although less so in Europe than in other places. Attitudes on some ethical and bio-ethical issues — such as opposition to abortion — are described as either 'right-wing' or 'conservative'.
Burkean conservatives favour incremental over radical change, even from the right. Most conservatives distrust the xenophobic and even racist sentiments prominent on the political right, just as most socialists distrust the communistic sentiments prominent on the political left. Protectionism and anti-immigration policies may conflict with free-market conservatives' support for deregulation and free trade. Some conservatives oppose military interventionism, inspired by early British conservative thinkers, such as David Hume and Edmund Burke. Burke saw imperialism as interfering with the traditions and organic make-up of the colonised societies.
The overlap between 'respectable' conservatives and the extreme right is determined by the degree of political taboo, rather than inherent ideological incompatibility. In European parliamentary systems, conservatives currently ally with centrist or even leftist groups, rather than with the xenophobic-populist right, although critics have contended that the conservatives are taking in far-right ideas. For example, in December 2005, Le Canard Enchaîné claimed that Nicolas Sarkozy had implemented almost all of the far-right Front National (FN) measures proposed in its election program. All mainstream parties in Belgium cooperated to exclude the Flemish-separatist and xenophobic Vlaams Belang, although some politicians wish to break this 'cordon sanitaire'. And mainstream parties in France sometimes support each others' candidates in run-off elections, to exclude the Front National party. However, in March 1977, and then March 1983, FN was present on RPR-UDF lists at municipal elections; in 1988, RPR and UDF right-wing conservative parties allied with FN in the Bouches-du-Rhône and Var regions. In March 1989, they had common lists in at least 28 cities of more than 9 000 inhabitants. Those alliances were condemned in 1991, but a dozen conservative deputies gained FN's support in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
Clearly, though, conservatives only favor changes of a certain kind. Anyone who follows political debates closely for even a very short period of time will be able to predict with considerable accuracy what the conservative response will be. This shows us that beneath its sometimes confusing surface, conservatism has a fairly simple and flexible set of principles which can be applied to virtually any situation. They are as follows:
Locate those who have the most political and economic power.
Determine what political plan will allow those people to continue to have free exercise of that power.
Use any means necessary to implement that plan.
In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance scandal, the superficially conservative action coincides with the more properly conservative action, so I will use that as an example. Even though it is intentionally vague, it is fairly certain that the words "under God" are meant to refer to the Christian God. This is because Christians have long held the most political power in America and continue to do so, no matter what Cal Thomas thinks. The removal of the words "under God" is an affront to the political power of Christians and must therefore be unequivocally condemned in order to maintain the low-level status quo.
Again, in the case of affirmative action, the logic behind the conservative position is fairly straightforward. Whites have long held overwhelming political power in America, and affirmative action programs don't simply increase the power of minorites, but actively take away power from whites. Because of affirmative action, fewer positions of prestige and power are available to whites (even if the overall effect of the policy has been negligible), even though whites are "more qualified." The trick is that if the whites are in power, they will always be able to decide what consitutes "more qualified" and will therefore be able to keep the black man down in a way that seems to be based on "objective standards." The only way to circumvent this and give minorities genuine power is to come up with some way to keep the whites from constantly stacking the deck, which is what affirmative action tries to do. As such, it must be opposed.
Thus we can see the conservative rhetoric of the evils of liberalism for what it really is: an emotionally loaded way of saying, "We had it first!" They are able to paint liberals as evil because the very success of the people the conservatives support (white Christian Americans) is a proof of the righteousness of their cause. Even though classic Puritanism led a relatively short life in America, this idea of prosperity and power as proof of God's election remains with us to this very day: "God is on our side because we are righteous, and we can tell this because we are in power. Therefore, anyone else who wants to try to take our power away from us is the enemy of God." Think about that the next time you recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- think about what "one nation under God" really means.
http://www.adamkotsko.com/conservative.htm
What is referred to as conservative in Europe is referred to as liberal in the US and vica versa. In France, I was called a liberal. As I understood the difference, I wasn't insulted.
quote:Originally posted by cindyalx:
I am a Sheffield resident and alcohol sales on Sunday is not what this city needs. I am also a christian and know for a fact that God is what we need.
It's people like you that turn me off to so called "Christians"!!
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
What is referred to as conservative in Europe is referred to as liberal in the US and vica versa. In France, I was called a liberal. As I understood the difference, I wasn't insulted.
What do you think the writer is getting at on this line here>>Think about that the next time you recite the Pledge of Allegiance -- think about what "one nation under God" really means.
slgreen,
" I am NOT a drinker at all. I personally wish that alcohol could be seen as the dangerous drug that it is, and BANNED!!"
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The US banned alcohol during Prohibition. The result was breakdown in respect for law, wide spread breaking of the law, enrichment and empowerment of organized crime (Mafia), gun battles using fully automatic weapons in the streets, and the resulting drug culture from wealth generated from bootlegging. Why, would you wish to return to such a failed and disasterous policy?
" I am NOT a drinker at all. I personally wish that alcohol could be seen as the dangerous drug that it is, and BANNED!!"
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The US banned alcohol during Prohibition. The result was breakdown in respect for law, wide spread breaking of the law, enrichment and empowerment of organized crime (Mafia), gun battles using fully automatic weapons in the streets, and the resulting drug culture from wealth generated from bootlegging. Why, would you wish to return to such a failed and disasterous policy?
pba,
To quote the GEICO caveman, "huh!"
To quote the GEICO caveman, "huh!"
No, they do not have the right to prevent me from buying a bottle of wine to go with my steak on one day of the week. This is clearly a religious intrusion upon my right to pursue happiness and avoid fundementalism.[/QUOTE]
Once again, THEY are not preventing you from doing anything. The vote will decide that. But if they want to talk against it, they have that right. Just like you have the right to talk for it. Get over it. This is the way it is, regardless of how you want it.
The government is literally making a law that establishes one religion over another which is exactly what the Constitution is supposed to prevent![/QUOTE]
What law are you talking about? This vote has nothing to do with making any law that establishes on religion over another. Get you facts straight before you speak.
Once again, THEY are not preventing you from doing anything. The vote will decide that. But if they want to talk against it, they have that right. Just like you have the right to talk for it. Get over it. This is the way it is, regardless of how you want it.
The government is literally making a law that establishes one religion over another which is exactly what the Constitution is supposed to prevent![/QUOTE]
What law are you talking about? This vote has nothing to do with making any law that establishes on religion over another. Get you facts straight before you speak.
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
pba,
To quote the GEICO caveman, "huh!"
Ok, I will let you have that one. lol
quote:Originally posted by Techno62:
No, they do not have the right to prevent me from buying a bottle of wine to go with my steak on one day of the week. This is clearly a religious intrusion upon my right to pursue happiness and avoid fundementalism.
Once again, THEY are not preventing you from doing anything. The vote will decide that. But if they want to talk against it, they have that right. Just like you have the right to talk for it. Get over it. This is the way it is, regardless of how you want it.
The government is literally making a law that establishes one religion over another which is exactly what the Constitution is supposed to prevent![/QUOTE]
What law are you talking about? This vote has nothing to do with making any law that establishes on religion over another. Get you facts straight before you speak.[/QUOTE]
You make a good point and I agree! I think his point like many here is that the so called right wing christian speaks against sin but fails to obey them and expect everyone to think like them.Do as I say not as I do.
quote:Originally posted by mustangfan2003:
sheffield really needs all the money they can get. man the streets there are so bad you can almost consider it off roading.
Still not as bad as Tuscumbia's. What a ride down 6th street.
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
Whiskey is much stronger than wine (40 percent or more vs. wine with 8 to 9 percent). The alcohol is not enough to kill the germs in polluted water.
Who the heck said anything about liquor? The discussion was about wine and it's medicinal benefits thousands of years ago.
But you don't know what you are talking about. The alcohol (and other stuff) in wine DOES have antiseptic properties.
nlynew=1" TARGET=_blank>http://www.fizteh.ru/fmbfeng/index/news/des_wine_eng.html?&xsl
nlynew=1Food Scientist Developing Wine-Based Disinfectant
published on: 27.10.2002
How about a nice glass of Chardonnay to go with that sponge when cleaning the kitchen? If food scientist Mark Daeschel is successful, you may soon find wine-based disinfectants on grocery store shelves.
Looking to build on previous antimicrobial research and anecdotal evidence, Daeschel decided to take a hard, scientific look at a centuries-old piece of advice: drinking wine with a meal helps prevent food poisoning.
Daeschel, a professor of food science and technology at Oregon State University in Corvalis, about 75 miles south of Portland, found that wine, particularly white wine, kills E. coli, Salmonella and other potentially deadly bacteria.
"From there, we came up with the idea of a wine-based disinfectant," Daeschel said. "There's a lot of wine out there in the world that doesn't have a home for one reason or another."
He found that white wine's high levels of malic and tartaric acids, along with its alcohol content, attacks and kills the germs.
Oregon State has attorneys preparing a patent application for the formula once it's completed, Daeschel said. And some wineries that have gotten wind of his research are interested in licensing it as a way to get rid of their excess vin ordinaire, he said.
Daeschel said he's tweaking the formula to get the best germ-killing results and making sure it doesn't leave a sticky residue on counters or a foul odor.
Beyond an alternative to chlorine- or iodine-based disinfectants in the kitchen, the formula could also be used in other food-related areas, such as in meat-processing operations to sanitize the carcasses of cattle, chickens and pigs.
So what do Daeschel and his students do with all that wine when they're done with it in the laboratory? "When the mothers ask that, we say it goes down the drain," Daeschel said.
quote:Originally posted by Techno62:
What law are you talking about? This vote has nothing to do with making any law that establishes on religion over another. G
Uhh, we are discussing the law that requires me to observe a purely religious covenant originated by Baptists.
Catholic folks (among others) have no such prohibition.
Therefore, the government has established a law that establishes one religious preference over another.
How is that NOT a constitutional violation?
@ interventer
You didn't answer my question at all.
You and DHS-86 brought up the masons...not I. It does appear google has let you down once again.
Your actions belie your words.
Sometimes stooping is not necessary...
You didn't say if that was the hand he placed on that masonic bible...click this link, maybe you can tell if it was this hand then...
Masonic bible finger of bush
quote:I answered your question directly.
You didn't answer my question at all.
quote:When you mentioned Illuminati, you opened an entirely new line of inquiry. I asked if were a Bircher, because they are the only ones I know still following that conspiratorial line. Perhaps, you are of a new group -- vegan, leftist, FBI agents for all I know or care. I just don't have the time to keep up with such groups.
You and DHS-86 brought up the masons...not I. It does appear google has let you down once again.
quote:Whether you attempt to judge or not doesn't mean a thing.
Your actions belie your words.
quote:As a parting shot, you offer an obscene gesture. But, did you have to use such a notorious photoshopped job, quite unprofessional. I shall not stoop to such.
Sometimes stooping is not necessary...
You didn't say if that was the hand he placed on that masonic bible...click this link, maybe you can tell if it was this hand then...
Masonic bible finger of bush
Attachments
Images (1)
I took my daughter from out of town to RTJ brunch last week so she could see the lake----cheap champagne is not my vice of choice! The regular Sunday lunch crowd was already beginning to slur and stagger inside ---brunch on porch, veranda, whatever. My point is if you know where to go and have the money to do it anything goes!
GoFish,
This is wine based disinfectant. Disinfectants sit and kill by breaking down cell walls of germs.
In mixed drinks, the alcohol does not have time to do this before ingestion. In Korea, bars catering to tourists have ice provided by companies inspected by the US Army PX, specifically for purity.
This is wine based disinfectant. Disinfectants sit and kill by breaking down cell walls of germs.
In mixed drinks, the alcohol does not have time to do this before ingestion. In Korea, bars catering to tourists have ice provided by companies inspected by the US Army PX, specifically for purity.
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
This is wine based disinfectant. Disinfectants sit and kill by breaking down cell walls of germs
Did you even read the article? The article was about science improving on wine's inherent and CENTURIES OLD ability to as as an antiseptic.
quote:In mixed drinks, the alcohol does not have time to do this before ingestion. In Korea, bars catering to tourists have ice provided by companies inspected by the US Army PX, specifically for purity.
<sigh> Again, the discussion was about why people drank wine thousands of years (antiseptic properties, safer to drink than water). I asserted that wine most certainly DID have alcohol in it after some goober asserted that people drank un-fermented grape juice.
No one but you said anything about mixed drinks.
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by interventor:
This is wine based disinfectant. Disinfectants sit and kill by breaking down cell walls of germs
Did you even read the article? The article was about science improving on wine's inherent and CENTURIES OLD ability to as as an antiseptic.quote:In mixed drinks, the alcohol does not have time to do this before ingestion. In Korea, bars catering to tourists have ice provided by companies inspected by the US Army PX, specifically for purity.
<sigh> Again, the discussion was about why people drank wine thousands of years (antiseptic properties, safer to drink than water). I asserted that wine most certainly DID have alcohol in it after some goober asserted that people drank un-fermented grape juice.
No one but you said anything about mixed drinks.
GoFish, I agree... wine certainly DID have alcohol/antiseptic properties... yep, and much safer, and probably is even today, it just tastes yucky, lol.
Guess I am going to have to take up drinking wine, lol..
Aqua Fina company admitted in today's CBS News report that it used TAP WATER in their bottles...
Wonder if all the bottled water companies do the same thing??? This is a rip off, and they should have to pay everyone who purchased their product back the money they spent on it...
I mean, I dupe everyone in this area with some faudulent item... then found out, I tell you guys YES I DID IT... but I KEEP THE MONEY???? Don't sound fair to me... I bet I have a small fortune in that stupid company... sheeeesh...
I am going to start drinking NOTHING but tap water from now on...least it IS KNOWN tap water, and it doesn't have arsenic or cyanide in it...
OR I MIGHT DRINK WINE... it is "medicinal"... right??
Aqua Fina company admitted in today's CBS News report that it used TAP WATER in their bottles...
Wonder if all the bottled water companies do the same thing??? This is a rip off, and they should have to pay everyone who purchased their product back the money they spent on it...
I mean, I dupe everyone in this area with some faudulent item... then found out, I tell you guys YES I DID IT... but I KEEP THE MONEY???? Don't sound fair to me... I bet I have a small fortune in that stupid company... sheeeesh...
I am going to start drinking NOTHING but tap water from now on...least it IS KNOWN tap water, and it doesn't have arsenic or cyanide in it...
OR I MIGHT DRINK WINE... it is "medicinal"... right??
quote:Originally posted by interventor:
GoFish,
"Wrong. Wine had enough alcohol to kill bacteria - which is enough to give you quite a buzz. The stronger it was, the better. That is one reason it (and beer) was so popular during that time.
Wine was unlike water in a puddle or pond that could be contaminated with all sorts of nasty stuff that could make you sick or kill you. FERMENTED wine was always safe to drink and, quite literally, EVERYBODY drank it as often as they could.
Of course, the ancients didn't know about germs. They simply knew that wine seemed to have extraordinary medicinal value. In fact, wine as a cure for all sorts of ills. Sick babies were bathed in it, for example."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I assume you haven't spent much time outside the US, where sanitation is not up to US standards. When drinking whiskey or other liquer, you must always have pure water for the mixer and the ice. Whiskey is much stronger than wine (40 percent or more vs. wine with 8 to 9 percent). The alcohol is not enough to kill the germs in polluted water. Follow your suggestion and you will have dysentary for certain. This is standard found in all guides to third world locations.
Herodotus and other ancient historians documented the manner in which water and wine were mixed in the ancient world. The link below discusses some of this:
http://laudatortemporisacti.blogspot.com/2004/10/wine-and-water.html
The dilution factor of one part of wine to three parts of water is among the strongest mixtures discussed by historians of that era. It is also interesting, don't you think, that drinking wine "neat," or undiluted was considered barbaric? An excerpt:
"It was considered barbaric to drink wine neat in ancient times. Herodotus 6.84 (tr. George Rawlinson) tells this cautionary tale:
The Argives say that Cleomenes lost his senses, and died so miserably, on account of these doings. But his own countrymen declare that his madness proceeded not from any supernatural cause whatever, but only from the habit of drinking wine unmixed with water, which he learnt of the Scyths. These nomads, from the time that Darius made his inroad into their country, had always had a wish for revenge. They therefore sent ambassadors to Sparta to conclude a league, proposing to endeavour themselves to enter Media by the Phasis, while the Spartans should march inland from Ephesus, and then the two armies should join together in one. When the Scyths came to Sparta on this errand Cleomenes was with them continually; and growing somewhat too familiar, learnt of them to drink his wine without water, a practice which is thought by the Spartans to have caused his madness. From this distance of time the Spartans, according to their own account, have been accustomed, when they want to drink purer wine than common, to give the order to fill "Scythian fashion."
Considering that the highest alcohol content achievable by natural fermentation is on the order of 9 to 10 percent, and that the ancient Greeks and Romans considered undiluted wine to be "strong drink," and to be the preferred libation of "barbarians,"one wonders what they would have thought about the high-proof spirits of our times that are produced by fermentation that can achieve 40 to 45 percent alcohol or more. Haven't we gone up by a quantum leap in the amount of alcohol we have in today's distilled beverages? Even diluting these half and half with water produces strong drink at least twoce as strong as the ancients achieved in their
Mixing 10 percent wine with water and allowing it to stand for a while in all likelihood DID kill off the bacteria that was present in water in ancient times, although some parasites could endure such exposure to alcohol. The more virulent forms of bacteria that we have today (certain variants of Eschericia coli, for instance) apparently did not exist in the ancient world. The experience of the ancients showed them, in whatever geographic and hygienic regime they lived, how much addition of wine was useful in purifying water.
And a word to those of you who purport to be Christians and who find comfort in the fact that early Christians did in fact drink wine, albeit the diluted, bacteria-inhibiting form---Can YOU, on the basis of scripture (which condemns "strong drink"), now knowing the real facts about what "strong drink" actually was in Biblical times (because you have now read what I posted above), continue to support the practice of drinking alcoholic beverages at strengths much greater than anything even available to persons living in Old Testament and New Testament times? Are you now a bit more enlightened than to fall in with worldly justification for that kind of drinking?
quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by Techno62:
What law are you talking about? This vote has nothing to do with making any law that establishes on religion over another. G
Uhh, we are discussing the law that requires me to observe a purely religious covenant originated by Baptists.
Catholic folks (among others) have no such prohibition.
Therefore, the government has established a law that establishes one religious preference over another.
How is that NOT a constitutional violation?
It isn't because the government isn't establishing anything. Plus if it doesn't pass then there is no law at all. It just continues the way it is now. Regardless of how the vote goes, it is the people speaking not the government.
Also, I would like to know exactly what you mean by "purely religious covenant originated by Baptists"?
I still say for me to be against the Sunday Sales, I would be against sales of everything on Sunday.
And their not offended by one of there deacons having a affair with there preachers wife? go figure.
and there not offended by one of there deacons having a affair with there preachers wife. go figure.
Lordy, Imyselfnmee, THAT must be VERY important info for you to have to say it twice!!!! heehee...
Just kidding...
Just kidding...
perhaps they were offended, or hurt and confused but realize it's not really their business. I hear the church took care of things as far as him being a deacon. What else could they do? I'm sure many people, families, are still hurting. There's this one thing called "forgiveness" that we need to take into consideration. Some things are just none of our business. If the church handles things and the families deal with it - then that's it. I'm not a baptist but I'm sure they don't "agree" with adultry just because it happens. I don't think it has anything to do with their outlook on Sunday sales, either.
Not having alcohol on sunday is pure stupidity with all the boot legers selling every where and the city not getting any tax from that. and i don't likr the preachers telling me when i can buy something, it wouldn;t do them any good because i am not giving them anything any way. so have some sense and get the tax off of LEGAL sales since you already have the boose already.
quote:Originally posted by Techno62:quote:Originally posted by GoFish:quote:Originally posted by Techno62:
What law are you talking about? This vote has nothing to do with making any law that establishes on religion over another. G
Uhh, we are discussing the law that requires me to observe a purely religious covenant originated by Baptists.
Catholic folks (among others) have no such prohibition.
Therefore, the government has established a law that establishes one religious preference over another.
How is that NOT a constitutional violation?
It isn't (a Constitutional violation) because the government isn't establishing anything.
Okay, the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
The government has "established" that it is illegal to sell alcohol during once single day. It is very much "established" that the reason behind this prohibition is to "keep the sabbath holy" and rooted in fundamentalist, puritanical beliefs.
I could argue, quite legitimately, that part of MY "religion" involves the consumption of wine or other spirits on Sunday. Therefore, the government is violating the constitution by making a law that establishes a fundamentalist religion.
quote:Also, I would like to know exactly what you mean by "purely religious covenant originated by Baptists"?
By that, I mean that Baptists are the main proponents of Sunday Blue Laws here in the South (and probably the entire US).
The Baptists didn't actually "originate" these laws, as far as I know, but have been the primary "enforcers" of the stupidity during the last century.