Mormon Missionaries.

[Galloism]

Where does this say they got drunk. it says they drunk it well, meaning to me that they liked it and drank it up. Just because the word DRUNK is in the sentance does not mean they got drunk.

This to me is the past form of to drink. It could have said, He offered them milk and they drunk it well.

And tell me, why would it be customary to save the bad tasting grape juice for the end?

There's a reason to do that with something intoxicating, because the taste buds dull as a result of being intoxicated (even at milder levels). If they were all drinking grape juice, it would make no difference whether they served the bad stuff at the beginning or the end, as it would be equally shitty.

Also, it would kind of ignore the whole culture of the time to think that everyone was sitting around at a wedding drinking grape juice. Hell, I don't even know of any modern weddings in any culture where grape juice is the customary drink.

[Galloism]

9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Also, in re-reading the passage., it seems to suggest that others brought wine which was all consumed, then Jesus changed the water to wine when there ws no more to drink and it was better wine. I dont get the "then that which is worse:" part, but this is how I read the passage.

Let's try another translation; maybe you can read it better:

9-10 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

It was customary to bring out the best wine first, and then once everyone was intoxicated, to bring out stuff that was cheaper (and not so good), because after they were intoxicated it wouldn't matter as much. However, in this case, it was the opposite, because the wine that Jesus made as a result of a miracle was very very good wine, and in fact the best that had been served.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

KMA, yaknow ... ya got a tg you might want to peek at. All the same - you're not doing yourself, or the church very many favors carrying on the way you have with some of this. Seriously. Take a moment and think through things before you tear off a post.

I know you're enthusiastic and all, but ... yeah. Just an observation.

I understand your concerns. Are we not counciled to educate? To not let false accusations lie? But to do it in a non-contentous way.

There are some serious misinformation here. I am merely educating. If I get too contentious, please let me know and I will ratchet it back.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

KMA, yaknow ... ya got a tg you might want to peek at. All the same - you're not doing yourself, or the church very many favors carrying on the way you have with some of this. Seriously. Take a moment and think through things before you tear off a post.

I know you're enthusiastic and all, but ... yeah. Just an observation.

I understand your concerns. Are we not counciled to educate? To not let false accusations lie? But to do it in a non-contentous way.

There are some serious misinformation here. I am merely educating. If I get too contentious, please let me know and I will ratchet it back.

Well yes, but that's the point - you're not 'educating' very well, and you have been stirring up more than your fair share of 'contention'. If not, I'd not be commenting now, would I?

[Redwulf]

Granted. How many times have doctors said things LIKE "Wine the new heath food" only next week to say "Wine kills you".

As for me and my house, I will obey God. If HE says it's wrong, then it's wrong.

Didn't Jesus turn the water to wine at the wedding feast?

It can be argued that the "wine" was simply grape juice. I am not sure on that one either, but the argument is there. It still does not change the fact that the commandment is there now.[/quote]

It can be argued that snow is the dandruff of angels. That doesn't make it so.

[Galloism]

It can be argued that snow is the dandruff of angels. That doesn't make it so.

I... think I'm going to have to sig that.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Also, in re-reading the passage., it seems to suggest that others brought wine which was all consumed, then Jesus changed the water to wine when there ws no more to drink and it was better wine. I dont get the "then that which is worse:" part, but this is how I read the passage.

Let's try another translation; maybe you can read it better:

9-10 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

It was customary to bring out the best wine first, and then once everyone was intoxicated, to bring out stuff that was cheaper (and not so good), because after they were intoxicated it wouldn't matter as much. However, in this case, it was the opposite, because the wine that Jesus made as a result of a miracle was very very good wine, and in fact the best that had been served.

OK, I can see your point. I have no answer for that. I stand corrected, at least until I can do more research

[Redwulf]

It can be argued that snow is the dandruff of angels. That doesn't make it so.

I... think I'm going to have to sig that.

Feel free.

[Redwulf]

KMA, yaknow ... ya got a tg you might want to peek at. All the same - you're not doing yourself, or the church very many favors carrying on the way you have with some of this. Seriously. Take a moment and think through things before you tear off a post.

I know you're enthusiastic and all, but ... yeah. Just an observation.

I understand your concerns. Are we not counciled to educate? To not let false accusations lie? But to do it in a non-contentous way.

There are some serious misinformation here.

Much of it coming from you.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

OK. Please do not fall prey to false accusations about the LDS church. If you want to learn, ask, or go online, or go straight to the "horses mouth" and pray.

DLN is correct, I am probably doing more harm than good, so I will bow out of this conversation. If you have any more serious questions or concerns, PM me.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

OK. Please do not fall prey to false accusations about the LDS church. If you want to learn, ask, or go online, or go straight to the "horses mouth" and pray.

DLN is correct, I am probably doing more harm than good, so I will bow out of this conversation. If you have any more serious questions or concerns, PM me.

Eh, not trying to make you leave the discussion, just think things through more before posting. You can access the info from sites and all just as easily as you can direct others to do so, after all. Just take some time, get your refs, and doublecheck is all.

The point of debate and discussion isn't to pack up your things and go home. If you find yourself struggling, take a break, gather your thoughts and references, and try again.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

OK. Please do not fall prey to false accusations about the LDS church. If you want to learn, ask, or go online, or go straight to the "horses mouth" and pray.

DLN is correct, I am probably doing more harm than good, so I will bow out of this conversation. If you have any more serious questions or concerns, PM me.

Eh, not trying to make you leave the discussion, just think things through more before posting. You can access the info from sites and all just as easily as you can direct others to do so, after all. Just take some time, get your refs, and doublecheck is all.

The point of debate and discussion isn't to pack up your things and go home. If you find yourself struggling, take a break, gather your thoughts and references, and try again.

I never found myself struggling. I feel it is OK to be wrong in a discussion and admit it. Sometimes opinions are based on feeling, thoughts, and faith rather than verifiable references. If I cant provide a reference doesnt mean its not right or wrong, it is my opinion. Too many people on these forums act like thier opinons are the cold hard facts. I have been guilty of it as well.

LIke I said in the beginning, somethings cant be explained through logic. I did not want to get into the debate. Granted I was baited into it. I was wrong there. I am now out.

[Muravyets]

Nope, not unless you think people can get drunk on grape juice. If you know some grape juice that I can get drunk on, please do tell. I've got to try it.

Grape juice you can get drunk on is called wine.

[Buffett and Colbert]

It can be argued that the "wine" was simply grape juice.

That would make no sense in context.

9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,

10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

If you replace "wine" with "grape juice" it wouldn't make sense?

Seriously. A little wine is good for you. A lot is bad. It's all about moderation. And really. It says wine. It doesn't say grape juice. It says wine. Deal with it.

[Galloism]

Nope, not unless you think people can get drunk on grape juice. If you know some grape juice that I can get drunk on, please do tell. I've got to try it.

Grape juice you can get drunk on is called wine.

...

Precisely. *downs his alcoholic grape juice*

[Buffett and Colbert]

Nope, not unless you think people can get drunk on grape juice. If you know some grape juice that I can get drunk on, please do tell. I've got to try it.

Grape juice you can get drunk on is called wine.

...

Precisely. *downs his alcoholic grape juice*

Yes. I don't see the point in Wine-ing about such things.

[Muravyets]

As much as various activities of missionaries in general and the LDS in particular might annoy me from time to time, I'm failing to see why it's a big deal that they don't drink wine. I mean, they're not trying to push a new prohibition amendment on everyone else, are they? So who cares if they decided to ban wine as an intoxicant even though Jesus himself was okay with it in moderation? My take on most religious prohibitions is that they are either magical -- intended to produce some kind of spiritual effect, in which case the taboo item matters -- or they are symbols of dedication -- intended to set the believers apart from the non-believing society, in which case the taboo can be pretty much anything. Either way, the taboo is likely not to make much sense to outsiders, but it's really not any business of us outsiders, so who cares if we don't understand it?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Yes. I don't see the point in Wine-ing about such things.

Oh, he wasn't wine-ing really. He was just trying to figure out the 'spirit' of it all. *nods sagely*

[Redwulf]

Yes. I don't see the point in Wine-ing about such things.

Must we pun? Is it really a pressing need?

[Galloism]

As much as various activities of missionaries in general and the LDS in particular might annoy me from time to time, I'm failing to see why it's a big deal that they don't drink wine. I mean, they're not trying to push a new prohibition amendment on everyone else, are they? So who cares if they decided to ban wine as an intoxicant even though Jesus himself was okay with it in moderation? My take on most religious prohibitions is that they are either magical -- intended to produce some kind of spiritual effect, in which case the taboo item matters -- or they are symbols of dedication -- intended to set the believers apart from the non-believing society, in which case the taboo can be pretty much anything. The latter kind of taboo is likely not to make much sense to outsiders, but it's really not any business of us outsiders, so who cares if we don't understand it?

I don't really care. I just didn't care for the assertion that Jesus miraculously created grape juice, which would be about the lamest miracle ever.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Yes. I don't see the point in Wine-ing about such things.

Oh, he wasn't wine-ing really. He was just trying to figure out the 'spirit' of it all. *nods sagely*

I'm too boozy to reply to this.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nope, not unless you think people can get drunk on grape juice. If you know some grape juice that I can get drunk on, please do tell. I've got to try it.

Grape juice you can get drunk on is called wine.

Shhhhh, woman. Don't tell him that, he'll get scared. He thinks we Catholics drink grape juice, not wine.

[Galloism]

Yes. I don't see the point in Wine-ing about such things.

Oh, he wasn't wine-ing really. He was just trying to figure out the 'spirit' of it all. *nods sagely*

Ok, no matter how punny that is, that's enough. Buffet and Colbert, go to your room. Dread Lady Nathicana, go to my room.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Yes. I don't see the point in Wine-ing about such things.

Must we pun? Is it really a pressing need?

You are right. We must distill this thread of puns.

[Greed and Death]

I really didn't intend for this to turn into a debate the Mormon poster on nsg thread.
okay, yeah some of the claims do seem a little far out, but most religions have those sort of claims that are far out there.
In history, belief, and other aspects.