Difference between revisions of "Talk:Alcoholic drink"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Talk:Alcoholic drinks moved to Talk:Alcoholic drink: Singular title is better)
(No difference)

Revision as of 12:46, December 9, 2007

Didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Jrssr5 13:12, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana and nicotine aren't alcoholic drinks, they're drugs. Also, don't some denominations of Christianity actually drink wine (an alcoholic drink) as part of Holy Communion?MatteeNeutra 13:14, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Where in the sentence Alchoholic Drinks, like Marijuana and nicotine, are considered to be gateway drugs... does it say are alcoholic drinks? It states they are gateway drugs.
JC 13:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
The bit where it says "Alcoholic Drinks, like Marijuana and nocotine, are gateway drugs."MatteeNeutra 13:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Try ''Dogs, like pigs and sheep, are considered to be mammals.... Does that make pigs and sheep, dogs?
JC 13:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
No because all 3 of them are mammals. Your original statement was similiar to "Dogs, like fish and snakes, are considered to be mammals ..." Jrssr5 13:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Alcohol, Marijuana and nocotine are gateway drugs. Is it so difficult to understand?
JC 13:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine are not gateway drugs. There is no evidence to support that claim. ColinR 18:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
That's different because pigs and sheep are simliar to dogs in that they are all animals. Marijuana and nicotine aren't anything like alcoholic drinks! Also in an article of this nature, where the subject matter is supposed to be about alcoholic drinks, an example of alcoholic drinks would be better mentioned rather than a drug reference.(Jrssr5 got there first!)MatteeNeutra 13:28, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, it is a good point. Alchoholism, like those other drugs, is often trivialized, but can lead people to much greater abuses. That's why the bible warns to stay away from it.--CWilson

It was the way it was written NOT the content. I changed it to eliminate conflusion. Crackertalk 13:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The way the sentence was originally crafted made the "drinks" the object, so that anything that came parenthetically after the comma would be assumed to be alcoholic drinks as well. Changing the word to "alcohol" makes the object of the sentence "drugs", thus gives better readibilty.Crackertalk 13:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's a good edit and it clears up the article. Jrssr5 13:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Jesus did not prohibit the drinking of alcohol. Read John 2:1-11, where Jesus makes water into wine at his mother's request. Surely if alcohol were a "demon drink", as the article describes alcoholic beverages at the time of my writing this, Jesus of all people wouldn't be providing it at parties. Schmit01:23, 14 March 2007

Since Conservapedia is trying to at least pretend to be 'unbiased', how about a few quotes from the Koran or the Book of Mormon about the evils of drink, as well? (And in Biblical times, drinking wine was likely to be significantly healthier than drinking water, due to the presence of cholera and other microbes, which the alcohol in booze would help kill.) --Scrap 04:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If you don't like the content of a page, say you think it does not include enough information, you are free to add it (Unless the page has been locked), that is the beauty of the wiki format. So, find the information and add it.--Reginod 18:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why does 'Alcohol' redirect to this page on Alcoholic Drinks? Alcoholic drinks are based on ethanol, which is only one form of alcohol. --Todd 11:42, 15 March, 2007 (EDT)

Please continue this debate at Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs? --Ed Poor 18:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Wine was transformed into the blood of Christ.

Not all branches of Christianity accept the Catholic tenant of Transubstantiation. Is there a better way to word this? --Mtur 16:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Singular vs plural

Alcoholic drink redirects here. Is it possible to flip this around so that it works with correct wiki style? --Mtur 16:55, 6 April 2007 (EDT)