the great depression did not end till after world war 2

The Great Depression did not end on the advent of World War 2, but lasted throughout WW2 and only ended after post-war deregulation and spending cuts. This might be counter-intuitive to those who were taught in school that WW2 ended the Great Depression, but a small thought experiment should show that this is true. What standard of living would someone choose if they could pick either 1928 or 1942?

It is key to remember that 1942 standard of living involved mobilization of over 12 million men of a population of 132 million. This 12 million was drawn out of the most productive age group, young men, and many were killed. Millions of other people, just as their families were being torn apart, were now forced to work in their place, not building houses and cars (things that improve life) but building tanks and bullets (items meant to destroy). On top of this, widespread rationing and war production led to shortages:

While some food items were scarce, others did not require rationing, and Americans adjusted accordingly. “Red Stamp” rationing covered all meats, butter, fat, and oils, and with some exceptions, cheese. Each person was allowed a certain amount of points weekly with expiration dates to consider. “Blue Stamp” rationing covered canned, bottled, frozen fruits and vegetables, plus juices and dry beans, and such processed foods as soups, baby food and ketchup. Ration stamps became a kind of currency with each family being issued a “War Ration Book.” Each stamp authorized a purchase of rationed goods in the quantity and time designated, and the book guaranteed each family its fair share of goods made scarce, thanks to the war…

In addition to food, rationing encompassed clothing, shoes, coffee, gasoline, tires, and fuel oil. With each coupon book came specifications and deadlines. Rationing locations were posted in public view. Rationing of gas and tires strongly depended on the distance to one’s job. If one was fortunate enough to own an automobile and drive at the then specified speed of 35 mph, one might have a small amount of gas remaining at the end of the month to visit nearby relatives.

By comparison:

The phrase [the Roaring Twenties] emphasizes the period’s social, artistic, and cultural dynamism. “Normalcy” returned to politics in the wake of World War I, jazz music blossomed, the flapper redefined modern womanhood, Art Deco peaked… Economically the era saw the large-scale diffusion and use of automobiles, telephones, motion pictures, and electricity, unprecedented industrial growth, accelerated consumer demand and aspirations, and significant changes in lifestyle and culture. The media focused on celebrities, especially sports heroes and movie stars, as cities rooted for their home team and filled the new palatial movie theaters and gigantic stadiums. In most major countries women were voting for the first time…

The spirit of the Roaring Twenties was marked by a general feeling of discontinuity associated with modernity and a break with traditions. Everything seemed to be feasible through modern technology. New technologies, especially automobiles, moving pictures and radio proliferated ‘modernity’ to a large part of the population. Formal decorative frills were shed in favor of practicality in both daily life and architecture. At the same time, jazz and dancing rose in popularity, in opposition to the mood of the specter of World War I. As such, the period is also often referred to as the Jazz Age.

Any rational human would take the 1928 standard of living over 1942. In Thomas DiLorenzo’s book How Capitalism Saved America, he addresses the numbers:

Per capita GNP statistics also reveal that, in terms of aggregate production, there was no recovery until after World War II ended and a massive reduction in government expenditures and employment occurred. As seen in Table 10.2, per capita gross national product (GNP) did not recover to its 1929 level until 1940, and even then, just barely so.

Data on personal consumption expenditures tell the same story – there was no economic recovery. Table 10.3 shows that personal consumption expenditures were approximately 8 percent lower in 1940 than they were in 1929.

There was also a massive reduction in private capital investment. From 1930 to 1940 net private investment was minus $3.1 billion, as Americans failed to add anything to their capital stock…

It was not until 1947, when wartime economic controls were ended and government spending and employments levels fell dramatically, that prosperity was restored. Federal government expenditures fell from $98.4 billion in 1945 to $33 billion by 1948, the first year of genuine recovery. Keynesian economists expected a two-thirds reduction in government spending to lead to another depression, but they were dead wrong… Private sector production increased by almost one-third in 1946 alone, as private investment boomed for the first time in eighteen years.

GNP might have increased during WW2, but that says very little about if a country is living a better standard of life. Ignoring wartime price controls and inflation that destroy any semblance of usability of wartime GNP figures, it is foolhardy to think that war is the cure for depressions. If that was the case, why shouldn’t the US declare unending war? The countries of the world could build tanks and planes, pile them in the desert, and blow them up. No one needs be harmed.

This thinking has already been debunked and is known as “The fallacy of the broken window“. Yes, GNP might skyrocket after a hurricane ravages Louisiana, but people are left miserably poor. Bastiat would contend that what is seen is that houses are being built and supplies are being consumed, but what is not seen is that so much more was lost. The labor now used to replace goods could have been used to produce over and beyond what was being replaced. People are left poorer after destruction.

Likewise, building tanks, whose sole purpose is to be shipped onto foreign soil to blow up similar equipment produced for the exact same reason by another country, all the while killing human beings, is not very productive. As a result, memories during WW2 often involve frugal living, rationing, and saving stamps to buy the extremely rare refrigerator. WW2 was desperately impoverishing.

the hatred of children

My wife and I were talking the other day. She mentioned the point at which people start looking at your strangely is when you have more than 3 children. As a rule of thumb, leftist hate human beings. They literally advocate for the murder of babies. So, one can image the hatred or any family then that has 12 or more children. The lastest example of the left’s hate is directed at a man with 30 children, Desmond Hatchett.

A quick glance at the comment section shows overwhelming support for forced sterilization! Forced sterilization was popular with Red China, Margaret Sanger, and Adolf Hitler. Not only is it a gross violation of liberty and human rights, it is amazingly invasive.

Here are sample

privatedancer158
this male should be taken to the nearest animal protective facility and neutered

godmama
He’s like an animal….castrate him.

Other comments range from wanting him to use birth control or calling him an example of whatever policy the commenter opposes. None seem to focus on these wonderful 30 children, their lives, and if they wish to be alive. Having more human beings makes the world a wonderful place.

intro to paul v the platonists

The Apostle Paul wrote his epistles between 50 and 60 AD. By this time Platonism had already been infused into both secular culture and popular religion. Both Paul’s writing and the writings of the other Apostles reveal a world entrenched in Platonic philosophy. In Colossians Paul establishes a stern warning against the philosophy of the day:

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

What Paul is speaking of here is precisely Platonism. Platonism was the dominant philosophy of the day. Most of the mainstream thoughts of the day were derived from Platonism. Those in Paul’s time praised and glorified the works of Plato. Anyone who was learned or cultured knew the intricacies of the Platonic worldview. Even a modern layman can see in the writings of Justin Martyr how prevalent Platonism was in the ancient world.

But possibly those who are unwilling to give up the ancient and inveterate error, maintain that they have received the doctrine of their religion not from those who have now been mentioned, but from those who are esteemed among them as the most renowned and finished philosophers, Plato and Aristotle.

Plato and Aristotle were celebrated philosophers. Entire schools rose up and debated each other on the finer points of Platonism. Justin Martyr writes that he bounced between multiple schools of philosophy before choosing Christianity: Stoicism, Peripateticism, Pythagoreanism, and finally Platonism, of which he says “their fame was great.” Platonism was the key thought of the day. It was popular the world over.

For of philosophy, too, some assume the name and the garb who do nothing worthy of their profession; and you are well aware, that those of the ancients whose opinions and teachings were quite diverse, are yet all called by the one name of philosophers. And of these some taught atheism; and the poets who have flourished among you raise a laugh out of the uncleanness of Jupiter with his own children. And those who now adopt such instruction are not restrained by you; but, on the contrary, you bestow prizes and honours upon those who euphoniously insult the gods.

It was Plato that despised the Greek gods. It was Plato who insulted their character and essence. As shown, if he were in power even speaking the names of the gods would be criminalized. Augustine later praises Plato for this very idea (City of God 2.14). It was the Platonists now dominating the intellectual world. They were given these prizes and honors specifically for insulting the gods based on Plato’s principles.

Not only was Platonism widespread but it was celebrated by the Roman Empire. While Christians were being persecuted for not embracing the gods of old, monotheistic Platonism was given awards. It is because of this that part of the main claim Justin makes of Christianity to win converts is that it is very close to Platonism. Justin continually quotes from Plato in an effort to convert his readers to Christianity. He even goes so far as to claim Plato got many of his ideas from reading the books of Moses:

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers–we mean the account given through the prophets–that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world

This was written in an appeal to the Roman Emperor so that Christians would not be persecuted. Justin Martyr continues on in this fashion throughout his appeal. Justin must have thought that Plato held incredible influence with the Roman aristocrats, or he would not so heavily rely on Plato’s name. Likewise, he elsewhere addresses the general population in the same fashion with absurd claims for Platonists being Biblically inspired:

And whence did he receive the suggestion of his saying that God exists in a fiery substance? Was it not from the third book of the history of the Kings, where it is written, “The Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice?” But these things pious men must understand in a higher sense with profound and meditative insight. But Plato, not attending to the words with the suitable insight, said that God exists in a fiery substance.

Martyr’s explanation of Plato’s belief that god exists in fire is that he misread the Bible. This is a laughable idea in the least, but Martyr seriously believed that Platonism was just an extension of the Bible. He tries to embed this point repetitively in his writings because if he could convince others of this then Christianity could thrive in the already widespread approval of Platonism.

Justin Martyr was certain and was correct in thinking that the entire known world regarded Plato as the utmost authority on philosophy and religion. He successfully converted many to his brand of Platonic Christianity and was soon considered one of Christianity’s greatest advocates. Some of his writings, such as On the Sole Government of God, are nothing but strings of quotes from Greek Philosophers, trying to draw parallels to the Bible. This very same Justin, due to this work, became very popular among early Christians as noted by Eusebius in his History of the Church (Hist 8.11.4).
It is quite evident from Pauls writings that he is referring to the Platonists and even goes so far as to mock their wisdom saying it is foolishness:

1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

This is a blatant mockery and is meant to be painful. It hurts someone much more to be called a fool when they are full of pride and think they are intelligent. Just as those who thought they were wise were called fools by Jesus, Paul calls the learned men of his time fools. As we have shown the learned men were in fact Platonists. Further evidence that Paul was referring to the Platonists can be seen in verses were Paul expounds on this type of wisdom:

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

He identifies the Greeks with wisdom. He identifies the disputers with wisdom. Elsewhere he again identifies the traits of those of which he has conflict:

Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

The apostle Paul gives further hint at who the philosophers of his time were in his allusions to the mysteries that were also prominent in those days. Greek mystery cults were not much more than Platonic societies with their own castes and promotions. Plato actually angered these cults by exposing to the masses some of their core beliefs. It was these beliefs infiltrating the church and creating such offshoots now known as Gnostics.

matthew was the first gospel written

Closely connected with the supposed requirements of development [used for dating the New Testament] is the manifold tyranny of unexamined assumption – John Robinson

Modern Biblical scholarship seems to be overwhelmingly in the position that the first gospel to be written was Mark. The primary reason for this claim is that they believe Matthew used Mark as a basis. This, in effect, is saying that a direct apostle of Christ used a non-apostles’ writing on which to base his own narrative. Mark is said to have based his own version on the preaching of Peter, some accounts claim after Peter’s death. If it is claimed Mark was only using Peter’s words (by tradition, long after they were said) then it is claiming a tax collector (Matthew) copied words from a fisherman (Peter) in forming the original gospel of Matthew. This also pushes back the writing of Matthew past 64 AD (the death of Peter) at least.

Proponents of the Markan theory also overwhelmingly overlap with those claiming a source Q gospel that was in circulation before the writing of any gospel. This suggests that the writers of the Gospels were not first or second hand witnesses but basing their writings on a mysterious list of sayings, one never mentioned by anyone in antiquity. Additionally, those advocating Markan priority tend to push back dating of most books of the Bible until after the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, because they cannot imagine a world in which Jesus could allude to this before the fact. This is despite Josephus naming an entirely different Jesus who did just that (Wars of the Jews, book 6).

The primary reason people believe Mark predates Matthew is because they want to claim the longer versions of stories are fabrications or embellishment. They want to show a progressive evolution and expansion of the narrative of Christ and wish to discredit the Bible. For example, atheist Early Christian scholar Bart Ehrman, while never positing a defense for Markan priority, tends to insert this point as an indisputable fact when trying to make points against the inherency of the Bible (see Misquoting Jesus). It is unfortunate that many Christians follow suit with these people for the sake of making themselves appear more scholarly.

Of course, to claim Mark was written before Matthew is to discount the Church Fathers as well as force imaginary stories on existing evidence. Contrary to the Markan priority theory, the early church historians seem to be overwhelmingly of the position that Matthew was the earliest gospel:

3. In his [Origen’s] first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language.

5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13
Eusebius, Church History, Book 6

Origen [184/5–253/4 AD] noted that’s these four are the only indisputable ones. Origen, although not without his flaws, is a Biblical scholar whose magnum opus was a six language interlinear Old Testament Bible with commentary. He is well aware of additional gospels in circulation. He also is aware of what we currently know as the book of Mathew (as evident by existing fragments of his “Commentary on Matthew”) and cites that it was originally written in Hebrew (some claim that he means Aramaic). Origen places Matthew first. Clement (c. 150 – 215 AD) is of the same opinion:

5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
Eusebius, Church History, Book 6

Although elsewhere Clement wrongly ascribes the book of Hebrews to Paul and does not agree with Origen about the second gospel written, this reference to the genealogies being composed first fits nicely into the history of Christianity. After all, the Gentiles were not ministered until Paul came on the scene and Matthew is thoroughly crafted to reach a Hebrew audience. Any Hebrew would be obsessed with genealogies (especially in proving who the Messiah would be). This also fits nicely into the common assertion by the Church Fathers that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew.

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.
Eusebius, Church History, Book 3

According to Eusebius via Papias and Origen, Matthew was first written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek. Eusebius, most definitely had the Greek version we know today and equates this to Papias’ Hebrew text. It seems very early that the Hebrew Matthew original was translated into Greek and the Hebrew shunned. The diaspora and the world at large would only have use for the Greek version. Only a small Jewish minority would be able to use the Hebrew text. Hebrew text, of any kind, seems to have been used seldomly and not have been terribly well preserved. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest Hebrew Old Testament texts (or of any kind) were dated in the 10th century AD. By contrast, “Premier among these ninety-four [Biblical Greek] papyri, however, are forty-three that are dated prior to or around the turn of the third/fourth centuries” [Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research]

Greek texts abounded in the ancient world when we find no traces of Hebrew.

Why do we even have these early Christian documents? Because they primarily were Alexandrian in origin (coincidently this gives those who argue in favor of accuracy in “earlier” manuscripts an Alexandrian bias). Ehrman writes:

As noted earlier, papyrus MSS survive only when protected from moisture – when placed in protective caves, jars, or buildings, or when buried in the soil of virtually rain-free regions of Egypt, Palestine, or Mesopotamia (though papyri must neither be too near the surface nor so deeply buried as to be affected by a rising water table).
[Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research]

The texts that remain do so against nature. All we have is a fragmented look into the past by documents lucky enough to be located in ideal locations and surviving two thousand years of man’s destruction. In all possibility, there could have been an original Matthew written in Hebrew that no longer exists today, as attested by the Church Fathers. In fact, the useful shelf life of a Hebrew manuscript would be so short, it would explain Tertullian’s non-mention of it:

therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. [Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4]

Tertullian [160-225 AD] indicates that John and Matthew wrote the first gospels, followed by Luke and Mark. He quotes exclusively from the Greek Matthew, never mentioning the Hebrew version. Either it was a non-issue to him, or the original language of Matthew had already fallen from memory due to the abundance of the Greek translation.

But what of Greek idioms in Matthew? Despite the fact that sometimes Jesus most likely spoke in Greek (John 3:7 is the use of a Greek idiom) in addition to Hebrew and Aramaic, translators sometimes transliterate idioms across languages during translation:

A knowledge of Hebrew and especially of Aramaic will occasionally throw light upon a variant reading in the Gospels. For example, the words of Jesus in Mark 14.25, “Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God,” are transmitted in three different forms… It appears that the Eucharistic words of Jesus, which were undoubtedly spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew to the apostles, have been preserved in literalistic fashion in the third variant reading, whereas the other two readings provide alternative interpretations of the meaning, expressed in more idiomatic Greek. (The second reading, in fact, can be called a misinterpretation, for it omits the idea expressed by “again.”) [Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 4th Edition, p 331]

Translators sometimes try to bridge the idiom gap and write to their reader’s language. There is no reason Matthew could not have been written in Hebrew originally.

Mark, then, could have been written at a later date to those speaking Greek, specifically written to Greek Jews and non-Jews. He would form his gospel after the Hebrew gospel penned by Matthew and based on the later teachings of Peter. He would neutralize Jewish elements in the Gospel and more focus on reaching the audience of Peter (the diaspora). This would result in a “reader’s digest” version of Matthew, conveniently as to what Mark is commonly referred. This would also explain why sometimes Matthew and Luke agree word for word where Mark differs.

Mark is not the earliest Gospel. Mark was written during the waning of the Hebrew mission and the rise of the diaspora and Greek mission. It was written as a Readers Digest version of Matthew, shedding very Hebrew centric ideas in favor of more broadly accepted ideas.

christians cut down trees

From Pagans and Christians, by Robert Lane Fox:

Christians, by contrast, were soon to practice some determined felling at either end of the Mediterranean. St. Martin was remembered for killing some great old trees in Gaul, and in the east, in the sixth century, John of Ephesus made several assault on Asia’s sacred timber. The triumph of Christianity was accomplished by the sound of the axe on age-old arboreta.

This is from a section of the book on the mystery cults and how they were obsessed with maintaining gardens and obsessed with “nature”. He writes “Decrees were concerned with replanting as well as preservation, for almost every cult aspired to rural sanctity, and nowhere was gardening more devoted.”

Christianity countered and destroyed this mentality. Christianity seems to have been a civilizing force well into the past.

Lowes versus the facists

Stop for one second and imagine you lived in a country in which you could be threatened by the government for not buying a certain product. Stop pretending, the thought police are already at your doorstep. Lowes is in hot water because they pulled their advertisement from a TLC show about Muslims.

To rephrase this: Lowes decided to stop spending money to air their own commercials, and they are being threatened by the government. People, not only can no longer decide who they would like to sell to, but also who they buy from. I wonder if protestors also rant about blacks who only patronize black businesses. I doubt it.

Aside from the blatant hypocrisy, the outrage of government officials are akin to fascism:

Calling the Lowe’s decision “un-American” and “naked religious bigotry,” Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, told The Associated Press he would also consider legislative action if Lowe’s doesn’t apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads.

Ted Lieu wishes to use the strong arm of the state to force people to buy from others whom they do not wish. Not to be outdone by another Senator, Fox News reports: “Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) also said Lowe’s is choosing to disregard the First Amendment.”

Because Keith Ellison is not Sarah Palin, leftists will not be writing him a history lesson or even pointing out his completely erroneous view of the Constitution. The First Amendment is written that the Federal Government (namely Congress) cannot prohibit speech. It specifically reads that “Congress shall make no law”. This does not mean, Lowes cannot choose to not advertise certain places. In fact, preventing Lowes from exercising Lowes’ freedom of speech in choosing not to advertise is explicitly against the Constitution.

Lowes should be praised. Not necessarily for pulling their ads in the first place, but by standing up against fascist politicians and political correctness. They should also be praised for making amazing commercials and greatly increasing the culture of America:

is getting drunk a sin?

Pro 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
Pro 31:7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

This passage is very damning to those who claim getting drunk in any circumstance is wrong. More so to those who claim even a drop of alcohol is a sin. It is very obvious that this “prophecy of God” is saying for individuals to proactively provide alcohol to those who are dying and those who an in emotional pain (such as a loss of a child). The purpose of the alcohol is to “forget… povery” and “remember… misery no more”. This is heightened by the contrast in the very verses preceding this:

Pro 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
Pro 31:5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.
Pro 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
Pro 31:7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

The immediate context is that rulers should not drink wine because it lends to inhibition and forgetfulness. To others, however, both “strong drink” and “wine” should be given. This presents a key point against the “not one drop” crowd. If alcohol is sinful, why does God command, for any reason, that people consume it? Paul also, commands Timothy to take wine for his problems:

1Ti 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

In this case, Timothy was not even dying or in mental anguish. Paul was, appropriately, not telling him to get drunk in this instance. Drunkenness is reserved for those in poverty and misery. Alcohol in moderation has many other purposes.

So how do those who claim alcohol as a sin take Proverbs. Predictibly, they misread it entirely and ignore the key points and takeaways (that is if they do not ignore it completely):

28) Proverbs 31:6-7 – Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.

This is nonsense on stilts. The Proverbs passage had nothing to do with “anesthetics” and even if it did, this verse makes clear alcohol is not always a sin, something this source rejects:

3) The Bible says alcoholic drink is evil. It is not just the amount one drinks that makes drinking a sin. God condemns the drink itself. (Prov 20:1 KJV)

So, is it a sin to drink any amount of alcohol for anesthetics or are you a hypocritical liar?

When fallible human beings impose their made-up morality on the Bible, legalism abounds. Never again use mouthwash or eat pasta cooked in wine. Never eat old applesauce or any other fruit for that matter. Alcohol, like self-righteousness, abounds in everything.