Can You Be Christian And Straight Edge?

[xsecx]

I think you guys are interpretting the Bible too literally. The church stopped the tedious practice of following every detail found in the scripture in the Dark Ages. Even Protestantism rejects strict adherence to scripture and is based on the principle of salvation by faith alone, in other words, faith in Christ is all that matters. Refusing to drink is in no way a rejection of Christianity. Most churches even substitute grape juice for wine when giving communion because they're purpose is not to encourage the consumption of alcohol. Such a substitution isn't considered a rejection of religious tradition. The Puritans and other more strict protestant sects forebid the cosnumption of alcohol as a sin.
My point is this, Christianity (as well as other religions, I'd imagine) are based more on morality, charity, and faith, not obscure details that have no bearing on the modern Christian's faith and worship. The way some people base their entire understanding and subsequent condemnation of religion on these details is the kind of stuff that makes sXe look like a bunch of militants and radicals and totally goes against the way sXe is supposed to accept anyone that has had enough of everyone around them destroying each other with drugs, smokes, and booze.
Christianity has the potential to help an individual become a better person, and I think some people here are forgetting that the real enemy has gotta be people who wanna drive everyone to be drunk and high.

so you thinking christ is wrong is somehow an obscure detail?

[straightXed]

I think you guys are interpretting the Bible too literally. The church stopped the tedious practice of following every detail found in the scripture in the Dark Ages. Even Protestantism rejects strict adherence to scripture and is based on the principle of salvation by faith alone, in other words, faith in Christ is all that matters.

So evangelical christianity stopped in the dark ages, interesting but wrong.

Refusing to drink is in no way a rejection of Christianity. Most churches even substitute grape juice for wine when giving communion because they're purpose is not to encourage the consumption of alcohol. Such a substitution isn't considered a rejection of religious tradition. The Puritans and other more strict protestant sects forebid the cosnumption of alcohol as a sin.

So they are replacing what originally was wine, why was it originally wine and when did god change this? Or was it changed by people who wanted their religious belief to tie in better with their lifestyle? If christianity now says alcohol is wrong to consume at all then could you show evidence for this?

My point is this, Christianity (as well as other religions, I'd imagine) are based more on morality, charity, and faith, not obscure details that have no bearing on the modern Christian's faith and worship.

It seems like its based on what conveniently suits them and they pick and choose when the details matter and when they don't. I mean the bible is either right or wrong because if you just take bits and discard others then the whole basis of your belief is under scrutiny and the bible ceases to hold any weight as the word of god.

The way some people base their entire understanding and subsequent condemnation of religion on these details is the kind of stuff that makes sXe look like a bunch of militants and radicals and totally goes against the way sXe is supposed to accept anyone that has had enough of everyone around them destroying each other with drugs, smokes, and booze.

So how is pointing out contradicting ideas at all militant or radical?

Christianity has the potential to help an individual become a better person, and I think some people here are forgetting that the real enemy has gotta be people who wanna drive everyone to be drunk and high.

Christianity also has the potential to make an individual a homophobic, intollerant person that reacts terribly whenever their religion is questioned. It also gives way to a lot of strange indoctrination of beliefs and attitudes in younger people.

[neverbackdown]

no, the obscure detail is the fact that christ drank wine (which was different from todays alcohol), if you believ that was wrong, thats your perrogative. But just because you choose not to do it doesnt mean you have to reject christianity and its teachings. Like i said, there are many christian sects that consider alcohol consumption a damning offense Puritans, Quakers, Amish, ect. My choosing not to drink is not equivalent to saying Christ was misleading and therefore not fit to follow. If you must, however, consider a strict interpretation, then understand that it is doctrine of the Catholic (who in early christian times was the first to establish these principles) church that christ was an extension of God placed on earth to experience the temptations and torments (ie "alcohol" consumption) as well as the need to repent those offenses that which allows us forgiveness for our sins. Christ was put here to be imperfect. Saying Christ was wrong in drinking is not going against the church, but understanding that christ was simply an intentionally imperfect part of God's plan.
Again, however, honroing strictly the tradition of bread and wine at communion is in no way a principle of worship for christians as substitutes are given at pretty much any church you go to. Christianity is based on faith, repentance, and respect for the 10 commandments, not drinking, or getting drunk. Saying "drinking is wrong and i refuse to do it" is not the same as "Christ was evil due to the wine at the last supper, therefore i cannot embrace the truly important aspects of faith"

[xbatmanx]

if you're done with the arguing part, then why continue to post? Clearly points have been raised that you simply can't or don't want to answer.

What I posted there was not part of what we were arguing. It was just a random comment that had relevance to the topic. See how we were not arguing that drunkenness was a sin, we were arguing drinking itself being wrong. I didn't know that just because I was done with the argument that I wasn't allowed to post anymore. And see how I made that little note in there? It's not that points have been raised that I can't or don't want to answer, it's just that the same points keep getting raised.

so you thinking christ is wrong is somehow an obscure detail?

I don't think he said that. There are certain things in the Bible that Christianity considers dogma. And there is certain things in the Bible that Christianity concedes is open for interpretation. Jesus drinking wine is not dogma. So even if I do think drinking for everyone is wrong, I can interpret Jesus drinking wine as symbolic. It would make sense to me that since Jesus taught in parables, there is a possibility that his disciples could also write the gospels in parable.
Scholars and theologians study the Bible for a living. I find it amazing that you are an expert in both straight edge and Christianity.
And by the way, how many straight edgers does it take to make a straight edge rule? Cause this thread seems pretty evenly divided.

Christianity also has the potential to make an individual a homophobic, intollerant person that reacts terribly whenever their religion is questioned. It also gives way to a lot of strange indoctrination of beliefs and attitudes in younger people.

Sounds a lot like hardline too.

[xsecx]

no, the obscure detail is the fact that christ drank wine (which was different from todays alcohol), if you believ that was wrong, thats your perrogative. But just because you choose not to do it doesnt mean you have to reject christianity and its teachings. Like i said, there are many christian sects that consider alcohol consumption a damning offense Puritans, Quakers, Amish, ect. My choosing not to drink is not equivalent to saying Christ was misleading and therefore not fit to follow. If you must, however, consider a strict interpretation, then understand that it is doctrine of the Catholic (who in early christian times was the first to establish these principles) church that christ was an extension of God placed on earth to experience the temptations and torments (ie "alcohol" consumption) as well as the need to repent those offenses that which allows us forgiveness for our sins. Christ was put here to be imperfect. Saying Christ was wrong in drinking is not going against the church, but understanding that christ was simply an intentionally imperfect part of God's plan.
Again, however, honroing strictly the tradition of bread and wine at communion is in no way a principle of worship for christians as substitutes are given at pretty much any church you go to. Christianity is based on faith, repentance, and respect for the 10 commandments, not drinking, or getting drunk. Saying "drinking is wrong and i refuse to do it" is not the same as "Christ was evil due to the wine at the last supper, therefore i cannot embrace the truly important aspects of faith"

so you're saying that not only was christ wrong, but that he was also a sinner? Saying drinking is wrong is saying that christ was wrong. You are putting yourself above the lord. unless you don't think jesus was the lord, or divine. Chosing not to do something isn't the same as saying something is immoral or wrong. By being straight edge, you're taking a very extreme stance and are in fact saying that the consumption of alcohol is wrong.

[straightXed]

Sounds a lot like hardline too.

And hardline isn't straight edge and has no relevence in this conversation, But it doesn't really sound like hardline anyway.

[xsecx]

What I posted there was not part of what we were arguing. It was just a random comment that had relevance to the topic. See how we were not arguing that drunkenness was a sin, we were arguing drinking itself being wrong. I didn't know that just because I was done with the argument that I wasn't allowed to post anymore. And see how I made that little note in there? It's not that points have been raised that I can't or don't want to answer, it's just that the same points keep getting raised.

If you don't want to actually discuss things and when you're in over your head and can't actually continue, what good are you? And of course it's not due to your inabilty to admit that you were actually wrong and haven't actually thought things out.

I don't think he said that. There are certain things in the Bible that Christianity considers dogma. And there is certain things in the Bible that Christianity concedes is open for interpretation. Jesus drinking wine is not dogma. So even if I do think drinking for everyone is wrong, I can interpret Jesus drinking wine as symbolic. It would make sense to me that since Jesus taught in parables, there is a possibility that his disciples could also write the gospels in parable.
Scholars and theologians study the Bible for a living. I find it amazing that you are an expert in both straight edge and Christianity.
And by the way, how many straight edgers does it take to make a straight edge rule? Cause this thread seems pretty evenly divided.

so you think drinking for everyone is wrong now? You can think lots of things are symbolic, but there's simply no reason to believe that jesus didn't drink alcohol. I find it amazing that someone who can't hold up a decent argument is going to try and make cheap shots about people being experts at things. Are you seriously so dense that you don't realize that this is a christian issue and not a "straight edge rule"?

Sounds a lot like hardline too.

good thing hardline was it's own seperate thing and is dead now then, huh.

[neverbackdown]

you guys got good points, and I'm tired of arguing. Christianity is a more important aspect to me than sxe EVER will be. If you can't accept people who see the good in both, so be it. But know that just because I find a lot of value in religion doesnt mean I'm gonna turn into a drunk.

[xbatmanx]

If you don't want to actually discuss things and when you're in over your head and can't actually continue, what good are you? And of course it's not due to your inabilty to admit that you were actually wrong and haven't actually thought things out.

Ok I guess we're going to keep going in this circular argument then since you're not willing to listen when people tell you what is what with their own religion.

so you think drinking for everyone is wrong now? You can think lots of things are symbolic, but there's simply no reason to believe that jesus didn't drink alcohol. I find it amazing that someone who can't hold up a decent argument is going to try and make cheap shots about people being experts at things. Are you seriously so dense that you don't realize that this is a christian issue and not a "straight edge rule"?

Read the words that are in front of you. I said even if I did think that drinking was wrong for everyone. I did not say that I did. This is what we call an example. Holy crap, you call me dense(do you need to resort to namecalling when it's getting harder to make a good point?)? And yeah, there is a reason for me to think that Jesus did not drink alcohol. Because drunkenness and specifically wine is said by God to be wrong, it leads me to believe that wine could possibly stand for something else when mentioned in the Gospels. It is considered debatable, which is why it is not dogma.
And you want to talk about me not holding up a good argument? It's a damn good argument if you open your ears and try to understand Christianity rather than ignoring what you choose to ignore (duality, dogma, etc).
And it does become a "straight edge rule" when we were arguing about straight edge meaning that alcohol was wrong for everyone. Is it possible that not everyone thinks that way and maybe the movement "evolved" again and you missed it.

Don't get angry Dusty. You seem like you're getting angry. It is just a debate.

[xbatmanx]

I know this is a hard concept to get your head around, but respecting the choices of others isn't the same as condoning them or agreeing with them.

So you respect immoral decisions? If someone does something evil why wouldn't you stand up to that? Do you have any non-sxe friends or do you only associate with edge kids? Respecting their decision would mean that you respect the reason they made that decision as well, which to them most likely wasn't an issue of morals.

[xsecx]

Ok I guess we're going to keep going in this circular argument then since you're not willing to listen when people tell you what is what with their own religion.

it's not a circular argument when contradictions are shown and you opt out. Did it ever occur to you that people brought up in the christian tradition could have just as much exposure to christianity as you have?

Read the words that are in front of you. I said even if I did think that drinking was wrong for everyone. I did not say that I did. This is what we call an example. Holy crap, you call me dense(do you need to resort to namecalling when it's getting harder to make a good point?)? And yeah, there is a reason for me to think that Jesus did not drink alcohol. Because drunkenness and specifically wine is said by God to be wrong, it leads me to believe that wine could possibly stand for something else when mentioned in the Gospels. It is considered debatable, which is why it is not dogma.

if you don't then it's a moot point and no reason to bring it up, now does it? Wine is specifically wrong, yet jesus provided wine for a wedding? Alcoholic wine at that. So where exactly does it say that wine is wrong? And how is the telling of a miracle debatable, unless you're saying that jesus didn't turn water to wine and that it was somehow symbolic it kind of bring his divinity into question.

And you want to talk about me not holding up a good argument? It's a damn good argument if you open your ears and try to understand Christianity rather than ignoring what you choose to ignore (duality, dogma, etc).
And it does become a "straight edge rule" when we were arguing about straight edge meaning that alcohol was wrong for everyone. Is it possible that not everyone thinks that way and maybe the movement "evolved" again and you missed it.

so it's a damn good argument that you yourself earlier admitted could easily been seen as a cop-out? Which is it? I've got an amazingly thorough understanding of christianity, I'm not the one here trying to change the religion to fit me, you are. ok, so if you want to bring straight edge into it, then you think drinking alcohol is right? Jesus dude. pick a stand.

Don't get angry Dusty. You seem like you're getting angry. It is just a debate.

how am I getting angry? you're the one playing the "I don't like how this is going so I'm taking my ball and going home" game.

[xsecx]

So you respect immoral decisions? If someone does something evil why wouldn't you stand up to that? Do you have any non-sxe friends or do you only associate with edge kids? Respecting their decision would mean that you respect the reason they made that decision as well, which to them most likely wasn't an issue of morals.

You can respect someones RIGHT to chose their lifestyle without respecting the reason or the immoral action. unless you're telling me now that you respect the reason why people drink, except that you don't want to associate yourself with them? Damn dude. which way is?

[xsecx]

you guys got good points, and I'm tired of arguing. Christianity is a more important aspect to me than sxe EVER will be. If you can't accept people who see the good in both, so be it. But know that just because I find a lot of value in religion doesnt mean I'm gonna turn into a drunk.

it's not a matter of finding good in both, it's the fact that some people are trying to change the religion to suit them and their needs rather than taking it for what it is. If you think drinking is wrong, wouldn't you find a religion that agrees with you? Rather than disregarding the bits and pieces that don't agree with you?

[xbatmanx]

it's not a circular argument when contradictions are shown and you opt out. Did it ever occur to you that people brought up in the christian tradition could have just as much exposure to christianity as you have?

It IS a circular argument when you either choose not to hear or just don't understand certain parts of Christian faith that would allow a Christian to be edge. And when you have yet to explain this collective decision that was made saying that in order to be straight edge you need to think that alcohol is wrong for everyone.
And as you've clearly demonstrated being brought up in the Christian tradition does not necessarily mean you know what you're talking about. As well as there are different sects of Christianity.

if you don't then it's a moot point and no reason to bring it up, now does it? Wine is specifically wrong, yet jesus provided wine for a wedding? Alcoholic wine at that. So where exactly does it say that wine is wrong? And how is the telling of a miracle debatable, unless you're saying that jesus didn't turn water to wine and that it was somehow symbolic it kind of bring his divinity into question.

The subject of the thread is "Can You Be Christian and Straight Edge?" not "Can James Be Christian and Straight Edge?" The "you" in this case is general. Meaning "Can One Be Christian and Straight Edge?" My beliefs don't matter in this argument. I could be a drunken atheist and still make this argument.
Hosea 4:11 "The Lord says, "Wine, both old and new, is robbing my people of their senses."
Proverbs 23:20 "Don't associate with people who drink too much wine or stuff themselves with food."
Ephesians 5:18 "Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, let the Holy Spirit fill and control you."
There are many passages relating to the sin of drunkenness. But these are at least some of the ones that specifically mention wine.

so it's a damn good argument that you yourself earlier admitted could easily been seen as a cop-out? Which is it? I've got an amazingly thorough understanding of christianity, I'm not the one here trying to change the religion to fit me, you are. ok, so if you want to bring straight edge into it, then you think drinking alcohol is right? Jesus dude. pick a stand.

What I said was when I was agnostic and did not have faith, the duality belief sounded to me like a cop-out. Sometimes things happen in your life where you develop faith. Since Christianity is a faith-based religion you need to have faith in order to believe some things. This is the thing that you are not getting. You're trying to argue things in Christianity that there are different beliefs on. I'm not trying to change anything. I hold my beliefs and Christianity happens to fit me.

how am I getting angry? you're the one playing the "I don't like how this is going so I'm taking my ball and going home" game.

I just don't like wasting my time trying to ague something in circles. I've got better things to do. I've gotten so much less done since I started arguing this. I'm not used to sitting on messageboards all day. I'm fine with the direction that this went in. I don't think you've proven anything about Christianity being wrong and I was never trying to convince you to change your mind because it's clear from any of your posts that you are convinced that you are never wrong. And I'm sure I come across as that too. My goal here has been to rebut you enough to provide enough information for people to make their own judgement. And I said that before. Now I'm sure you'll go on to say "oh you can't even come up with an argument," "you're not really sxe," "you're not really Christian," or whatever you can think of to try to make me look bad. I will let my arguments speak for themselves. Just because they don't work for you doesn't mean they won't work for someone else. Seriously, say whatever you want, but I've wasted too much time on this.
So now I'm going to start enjoying the rest of the site if you don't mind.

[kelly]

So now I'm going to start enjoying the rest of the site if you don't mind.

Just wondering if there were air quotes around the word "enjoying" when you said that.