If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   Finally a ritual all Christian religions can unite around: Blessing the vineyards in hopes of producing better wine   (azcentral.com) divider line 51
    More: Cool, Sonoita Vineyards, Sonoita, wine tasting  
•       •       •

995 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 08:40:09 AM  
Just have the J-man bless some water
 
2013-04-25 08:40:35 AM  
Pagan. Church started doing this to get pagans to convert.
 
2013-04-25 08:41:11 AM  
Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.
 
2013-04-25 08:41:57 AM  

flsprtsgod: Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.


yep, same here... my southern baptist family does communion with welch's grape juice...
 
2013-04-25 08:42:28 AM  
Every time that damned priest comes around all the wine turns into blood.
 
2013-04-25 08:42:56 AM  
www.thedrinksbusiness.com
 
2013-04-25 08:45:08 AM  

Shakespeare's Monkey: [www.thedrinksbusiness.com image 590x590]


One word: yuck.
 
2013-04-25 08:45:41 AM  
There are a lot of teetotaler protestant churches out there that would not be behind this. What's funny is that a lot of these churches are ones that believe in a literal translation of the bible for almost everything(i.e. creationists), but will happily assume that wine when consumed by Jesus was just grape juice.
 
2013-04-25 08:46:53 AM  
Dopes.  Only the blood of a virgin will do that.
 
2013-04-25 08:48:15 AM  

bsharitt: There are a lot of teetotaler protestant churches out there that would not be behind this. What's funny is that a lot of these churches are ones that believe in a literal translation of the bible for almost everything(i.e. creationists), but will happily assume that wine when consumed by Jesus was just grape juice.


according to my family, they had a different kind of wine back then, and it wasn't as alcoholic but that sort of wine cannot be made or found today...
 
2013-04-25 08:51:26 AM  

CeroX: bsharitt: There are a lot of teetotaler protestant churches out there that would not be behind this. What's funny is that a lot of these churches are ones that believe in a literal translation of the bible for almost everything(i.e. creationists), but will happily assume that wine when consumed by Jesus was just grape juice.

according to my family, they had a different kind of wine back then, and it wasn't as alcoholic but that sort of wine cannot be made or found today...


Oh, I know. I grew up in such a church. I've always thought it odd they would fight so hard for the literal interpretation of so much, but hand wave that little bit.
 
2013-04-25 08:51:32 AM  

flsprtsgod: Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.


Seriously. It's almost as if subby has no idea what he's talking about.

Still, it's as good an opportunity as any to trot out the tired old joke for the 5% of people who haven't heard it:

Q: What's the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic?
A: The Catholic will say "hi" to you when you bump into him at the liquor store.
 
2013-04-25 08:54:22 AM  
I wish religion would just stay the fark out of all the fun stuff in life.
 
2013-04-25 08:56:28 AM  

bsharitt: There are a lot of teetotaler protestant churches out there that would not be behind this. What's funny is that a lot of these churches are ones that believe in a literal translation of the bible for almost everything(i.e. creationists), but will happily assume that wine when consumed by Jesus was just grape juice.


My wife was a Nazarene pastor. Nazarenes are a teetotaller denomination because their early days included a lot of ministry with recovering alcoholics, and they wanted their church to be a safe place for them. It did not include anything about Jesus' wine being wine-lite.
 
2013-04-25 08:56:41 AM  

CeroX: bsharitt: There are a lot of teetotaler protestant churches out there that would not be behind this. What's funny is that a lot of these churches are ones that believe in a literal translation of the bible for almost everything(i.e. creationists), but will happily assume that wine when consumed by Jesus was just grape juice.

according to my family, they had a different kind of wine back then, and it wasn't as alcoholic but that sort of wine cannot be made or found today...


Wine during Roman times was heavily diluted.  It was considered barbaric to drink undiluted wine.  And the reason everybody drank it was because it was safer then water.
 
2013-04-25 08:57:02 AM  
"In 1979, when Grandfather had the vineyard blessed, there was a double rainbow," Reynolds said.

So that's what it means.
 
2013-04-25 08:57:11 AM  

bsharitt: CeroX: bsharitt: There are a lot of teetotaler protestant churches out there that would not be behind this. What's funny is that a lot of these churches are ones that believe in a literal translation of the bible for almost everything(i.e. creationists), but will happily assume that wine when consumed by Jesus was just grape juice.

according to my family, they had a different kind of wine back then, and it wasn't as alcoholic but that sort of wine cannot be made or found today...

Oh, I know. I grew up in such a church. I've always thought it odd they would fight so hard for the literal interpretation of so much, but hand wave that little bit.


If you have to start lying to yourself and others about your holy text in order to get it to conform to your contemporary take on it, maybe it's just not the religion for you.

Oddly, they'd be better off as Muslims in terms of consistency.
 
2013-04-25 08:57:41 AM  
I wish religion would just stay the fark out of all the fun stuff in life.

I wish the militant atheists would quit taking offense....at everything religious.
It just flies in the face of that whole religious freedom thing the founding fathers supported.
It's freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
You're not forced to participate, and if you don't honestly want to, I'd rather you didn't.
 
2013-04-25 09:03:44 AM  

bsharitt: CeroX: bsharitt: There are a lot of teetotaler protestant churches out there that would not be behind this. What's funny is that a lot of these churches are ones that believe in a literal translation of the bible for almost everything(i.e. creationists), but will happily assume that wine when consumed by Jesus was just grape juice.

according to my family, they had a different kind of wine back then, and it wasn't as alcoholic but that sort of wine cannot be made or found today...

Oh, I know. I grew up in such a church. I've always thought it odd they would fight so hard for the literal interpretation of so much, but hand wave that little bit.


So, when I was in college, I was in a pretty strict religious student group. (If you said "cult," I wouldn't correct you.) Their stance on the subject was that while drinking a little alcohol might not be a sin in and of itself, and the wine in the Bible did contain alcohol, "The World" (read, non-fundamentalists) expect "Real Christians" (read, fundamentalists) to not drink. Therefore, if a non-Christian saw you drinking, they would think that you were a hypocrite, and you ability to "witness" would be harmed. Since your only real purpose in life was to make converts, enjoying yourself a little was not worth risking sending people to hell, so don't drink. Period. Paul's discussion of "Meat offered to idols" was brought up frequently as a Biblical support for this stance.

....And, if all of that didn't persuade you, (like, say, you tried to rationalize that having a beer with some non-Christians might make you seem less uptight so that you could "witness" better,) they'd simply say that if you were in "leadership" in our group, you can't drink. End of discussion. Since the 15-20 hours a week that the group demanded from "leaders" meant that people in the group were your only friends, they were pretty much threatening you with social shame/expulsion if you didn't toe the line. People generally behaved themselves - or if they did sneak a beer, it was pretty discrete, so no witch hunts resulted.
 
2013-04-25 09:05:54 AM  

CeroX: flsprtsgod: Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.

yep, same here... my southern baptist family does communion with welch's grape juice...


This is why I take perverse joy in turning Welch's grape juice into wine. Historical context.
 
2013-04-25 09:06:22 AM  

Burr: Wine during Roman times was heavily diluted. It was considered barbaric to drink undiluted wine. And the reason everybody drank it was because it was safer then water.


And it was still quite clearly someone one could get drunk on.  Including the stuff at Cana.
 
2013-04-25 09:06:37 AM  

Kurmudgeon: It just flies in the face of that whole religious freedom thing the founding fathers supported.


Who here is advocating the abolition of religious freedom?

Kurmudgeon: It's freedom of religion, not freedom from it.


The former includes the latter - as far as it pertains to secular institutions.
 
2013-04-25 09:07:57 AM  

Burr: Wine during Roman times was heavily diluted. It was considered barbaric to drink undiluted wine. And the reason everybody drank it was because it was safer then water.


Wine during Roman times still got you drunk.
 
2013-04-25 09:13:35 AM  

feanorn: Shakespeare's Monkey: [www.thedrinksbusiness.com image 590x590]

One word: yuck.


If you couldn't see the label, you wouldn't know the difference.
 
2013-04-25 09:14:29 AM  

Zagloba: Burr: Wine during Roman times was heavily diluted. It was considered barbaric to drink undiluted wine. And the reason everybody drank it was because it was safer then water.

Wine during Roman times still got you drunk.


I remember talking to my classics profs about that, and how strong it would have been.  At meals, you'd usually dilute it 2-1 or 3-1 water to wine.  At parties they'd drink it neat.  The Cyclops who captured Odysseus and then got drunk had to dilute his 100-1 to make it drinkable for humans.

I love the Biblical story, especially the guests coming up to the party host after Jesus transformed it, and saying "most people start out with the good wine and switch in cheaper stuff once the guests are too drunk to notice, but you're awesome, you saved the best wine for last."

Definitely wine.  I don't know how you get grape juice out of that.
 
2013-04-25 09:27:15 AM  

Zagloba: Burr: Wine during Roman times was heavily diluted. It was considered barbaric to drink undiluted wine. And the reason everybody drank it was because it was safer then water.

Wine during Roman times still got you drunk.


Yeah, I never said it didn't.  But it was different then what we call wine today.

Anybody who looks at wine in the bible and says it had no alcohol in it is crazy.
 
2013-04-25 09:31:49 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: flsprtsgod: Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.

Seriously. It's almost as if subby has no idea what he's talking about.

Still, it's as good an opportunity as any to trot out the tired old joke for the 5% of people who haven't heard it:

Q: What's the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic?
A: The Catholic will say "hi" to you when you bump into him at the liquor store.


I grew up Episcopalian, so our line was "wherever there's four Episcopalians, there's a fifth."
 
2013-04-25 09:32:05 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: flsprtsgod: Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.

Seriously. It's almost as if subby has no idea what he's talking about.

Still, it's as good an opportunity as any to trot out the tired old joke for the 5% of people who haven't heard it:

Q: What's the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic?
A: The Catholic will say "hi" to you when you bump into him at the liquor store.


You can't go fishing with just one Baptist... you have to take two.
If you go with one, he'll drink all your beer... if you take two, neither of them will drink any beer.
 
2013-04-25 09:45:31 AM  

Burr: Yeah, I never said it didn't. But it was different then what we call wine today.

Anybody who looks at wine in the bible and says it had no alcohol in it is crazy.


No, I get that you're not saying it didn't, but if you were trying to emphasize that it was alcoholic, you should say that, because otherwise "well, wine was different back then" is what the Baptists say too.

In any case: I'm not sure how different wine could have been; it's not like they had high-alcohol-tolerance yeast strains just sitting around in their refrigerators waiting for a tasty batch of grape juice to eat. I mean, the wine was probably a lot cloudier and featured what would today be thought of as "off flavors", but I don't see how you could have gotten radical differences.
 
2013-04-25 09:48:03 AM  
Baptist joke. When you go fishing how do you keep your Baptist friend from drinking all your beer? Bring along another Baptist.

It's funny cause it's true.
 
2013-04-25 09:59:44 AM  

Zagloba: Burr: Yeah, I never said it didn't. But it was different then what we call wine today.

Anybody who looks at wine in the bible and says it had no alcohol in it is crazy.

No, I get that you're not saying it didn't, but if you were trying to emphasize that it was alcoholic, you should say that, because otherwise "well, wine was different back then" is what the Baptists say too.

In any case: I'm not sure how different wine could have been; it's not like they had high-alcohol-tolerance yeast strains just sitting around in their refrigerators waiting for a tasty batch of grape juice to eat. I mean, the wine was probably a lot cloudier and featured what would today be thought of as "off flavors", but I don't see how you could have gotten radical differences.


It was wine. The only big difference in taste was that they often served it with spices or honey, and they stored it not in cellars like we do, but above their fireplaces, because they liked it to get a slightly smoky taste, the same sort of flavour we like in our single malts today.
 
2013-04-25 10:01:53 AM  

RickN99: Martian_Astronomer: flsprtsgod: Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.

Seriously. It's almost as if subby has no idea what he's talking about.

Still, it's as good an opportunity as any to trot out the tired old joke for the 5% of people who haven't heard it:

Q: What's the difference between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic?
A: The Catholic will say "hi" to you when you bump into him at the liquor store.

I grew up Episcopalian, so our line was "wherever there's four Episcopalians, there's a fifth."


Episcopalian here too. When I was in junior high my mother worked for a church supply store, and that was where I found out that some churches don't use wine and some use little plastic cups for Communion.

We even used wine at summer camp, although there it was watered down.
 
2013-04-25 10:03:11 AM  
A couple of months ago, there was a brief discussion in my Sunday School class that started with "Is it a sin to drink alcohol?"  The first answer (not from me) was "I think anything to excess is a sin."  Everyone pretty much agreed that a little now and then is OK.  And this was in a rural Baptist church in the hills of Tennessee.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:29 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: Kurmudgeon: It just flies in the face of that whole religious freedom thing the founding fathers supported.

Who here is advocating the abolition of religious freedom?

Kurmudgeon: It's freedom of religion, not freedom from it.

The former includes the latter - as far as it pertains to secular institutions.


First question, read the one I responded to
2nd statement. Sorry, that isn't proven out by facts, that's just how the anti-religious want to portray it.
You have to remove people's freedom of religion and association, as well as their freedom of speech to accomplish what you want. Expect things to go bad quickly when that happens.
"secular institutions" are vaguely defined and your rights don't disappear just because you are in one.
Exception: Kids in school, where atheism should be banned also as religious speech.
 
2013-04-25 10:31:39 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Martian_Astronomer: Kurmudgeon: It just flies in the face of that whole religious freedom thing the founding fathers supported.

Who here is advocating the abolition of religious freedom?

Kurmudgeon: It's freedom of religion, not freedom from it.

The former includes the latter - as far as it pertains to secular institutions.

First question, read the one I responded to
2nd statement. Sorry, that isn't proven out by facts, that's just how the anti-religious want to portray it.
You have to remove people's freedom of religion and association, as well as their freedom of speech to accomplish what you want. Expect things to go bad quickly when that happens.
"secular institutions" are vaguely defined and your rights don't disappear just because you are in one.
Exception: Kids in school, where atheism should be banned also as religious speech.


If you don't see any difference between "I wish religious people would stop engaging in behavior that I consider harmful or distasteful" and "I want to use the force of government to stop religious people from being allowed to practice their religion," then I don't think this is going to be a productive discussion.

Similarly, "freedom from religion" simply means that you cannot be compelled to participate in religious observances by a governmental entity.Call up the FFRF and ask them whether or not they think people should be allowed to participate in private religious services.

If religious people do stuff on their own dime, and atheists then say "That's stupid," nobody's rights are in jeopardy. Chill.
 
2013-04-25 10:31:52 AM  

CeroX: flsprtsgod: Ummmm, my Southern Baptist family would disagree you there subby.

yep, same here... my southern baptist family does communion with welch's grape juice...


Same here too. Subby clearly does not know Baptists.

\ All the guilt of Catholicism with none of the forgiveness!
 
2013-04-25 10:36:14 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Zagloba: Burr: Yeah, I never said it didn't. But it was different then what we call wine today.

Anybody who looks at wine in the bible and says it had no alcohol in it is crazy.

No, I get that you're not saying it didn't, but if you were trying to emphasize that it was alcoholic, you should say that, because otherwise "well, wine was different back then" is what the Baptists say too.

In any case: I'm not sure how different wine could have been; it's not like they had high-alcohol-tolerance yeast strains just sitting around in their refrigerators waiting for a tasty batch of grape juice to eat. I mean, the wine was probably a lot cloudier and featured what would today be thought of as "off flavors", but I don't see how you could have gotten radical differences.

It was wine. The only big difference in taste was that they often served it with spices or honey, and they stored it not in cellars like we do, but above their fireplaces, because they liked it to get a slightly smoky taste, the same sort of flavour we like in our single malts today.


Using nothing but the technology of the time, it's rather difficult to have grape juice that DOESN'T turn into wine. Pick a bunch of grapes, mash 'em up, and let nature take its course, and those things seem to be driven to create vino.
 
2013-04-25 12:11:22 PM  
I was always told that the difference between the wine of Biblical/Roman times and today was because they did not have refined sugar so they sometimes used honey as a sweetener. The sugar:water ratio in honey varies widely plus it adds different flavors so the alcohol level and flavor of the wine would vary.

In other words, the wine had alcohol but it ranged widely depending on the sweetness of the grapes and whether they added honey.
 
2013-04-25 12:47:15 PM  
bigsecretpizzaparty.typepad.com
 
2013-04-25 01:56:09 PM  
In my youth, these were used to forbid God-given herbs and natural plant extracts, too.Proverbs 20:1
(KJV)

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.


Romans 14:21(KJV)

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
 
2013-04-25 02:05:39 PM  
This thread does not yet contain a Borgia reference. I am disappoint, Fark.
 
2013-04-25 02:34:20 PM  

wellreadneck: In my youth, these were used to forbid God-given herbs and natural plant extracts, too.Proverbs 20:1
(KJV)

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.


Romans 14:21(KJV)

It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.


What about Proverbs 31: 6-7?

6 Let beer be for those who are perishing,
wine for those who are in anguishia
t Let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
 
2013-04-25 02:54:56 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: Paul's discussion of "Meat offered to idols" was brought up frequently as a Biblical support for this stance.


There's that Paul guy again, turning a hippie creed into a hierarchical bureaucracy.
 
2013-04-25 03:51:17 PM  
Duh.  Everyone knows if you want the good stuff, this is the guy to call:
classics.uc.edu
Though I could understand mistaking the two if you're in a hurry.
 
2013-04-25 04:09:31 PM  

theorellior: Martian_Astronomer: Paul's discussion of "Meat offered to idols" was brought up frequently as a Biblical support for this stance.

There's that Paul guy again, turning a hippie creed into a hierarchical bureaucracy.


Two points:

1. The "meat offered to idols" passage in 1 Corinthians is not particularly legalistic; the argument is that eating meat offered to idols isn't sinful in and of itself, and everyone should follow their own conscience. However, if eating meat sacrificed to idols would cause a brother to "stumble," your obligation to look out for his spiritual wellbeing trumps your own right to do whatever you want. (A common theme in Christianity, really.)

2. Most Bible scholars date the writing of the gospels at least 20 years after Paul wrote his epistles, and there is a good bit of agreement that the writings of Paul actually influenced the gospels, not the other way around. (The magnitude of this influence is a matter of debate, of course.) Paul may have altered the "original" message of Christianity, but citing the Gospels to say that Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus is like saying that HP Lovecraft totally misunderstood Stephen King. Besides, if you read the Gospels, Jesus wasn't the peaceful hippie a lot of farkers like to portray him as.
 
2013-04-25 04:30:59 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com

Coming to trample your vineyard with her grapes of WRATH.
 
2013-04-25 05:18:45 PM  
Are Mormon's considered Christians?  As in, do they believe in Christ?
 
2013-04-25 05:40:48 PM  

Sugarloafer: Are Mormon's considered Christians?  As in, do they believe in Christ?


Given that the proper name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I would say so.
 
2013-04-25 07:03:33 PM  

Grave_Girl: Sugarloafer: Are Mormon's considered Christians?  As in, do they believe in Christ?

Given that the proper name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I would say so.


although along with their other wacky beliefs... they believe Jesus came to north america after his resurrection.. met with Moroni and the prophets that were there at the time... you know, the mormons that made the golden plates and buried them in the ground in upstate new york,  then later when Joseph Smith was a teenager, the spirit of Moroni appeared to him and led him to the alleged golden plates and helped him interpret them into english... allegedly...  btw, Jesus is on the same level as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and other mormon 'prophets'...
 
2013-04-26 01:43:24 PM  

Sugarloafer: Are Mormon's considered Christians?  As in, do they believe in Christ?


Do they believe Christ existed and was a prophet: yes
Do they believe that salvation comes from a belief that Jesus died for their sins (the actual definition of a Christian): no
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report