# ‘Pharmakeia’ in the NT Era: Exposition and Application



## Jerusalem Blade

_*Pharmakeia*_ in the NT Era: Exposition and Application, with Objections Answered

I’ve titled the thread this way as evidently “sorcery” is a buzz-word that gets folks defensive and overheated. So I’ll just stick with the NT Greek word that’s usually translated into English as “sorcery” or “witchcraft” – the LXX likewise using _pharmakeia_ and its cognates when referring to persons or activities in the OT involving the magic arts (cf. Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18; 9:11; 22:18; Deut 18:10; Isa 47:9, 12; 2 Chr 33:6; 2 Kings 9:22; Dan 2:2; Mic 5:12; Nah 3:4; Mal 3:5). Commenting on this last verse, Malachi 3:5, 

“And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers [_pharmakos_], and against the adulterers, and against false swearers”, [emphasis mine –SMR]​
Calvin says, “as the word is found here all by itself, the Prophet no doubt meant to include all kinds of diviners, soothsayers, false prophets, and all such deceivers: and so there is here again another instance of stating a part for the whole”, saying of the Jews of that time, “they were then so given up to gross abominations, that they abandoned themselves to magic arts, and to incantations . . . of the devil.” (_Calvin’s Commentaries_; Vol 15, p. 577).

Very often we find, in both the OT and the New, this use of synecdoche (stating a part for the whole) when the word _pharmakeia_ and its cognates are used, the use of drugs as the essential and common component in almost all of the “magic arts”. Consider, the Jews who translated the OT into the LXX invariably used a word signifying “drugs used as magic potions” _whenever_ referring to the magic arts and its practitioners. Why would they do that – use that particular word – were it not actually so?

If anyone wonders why I am referencing the LXX (given my AV priority views), I quote from a previous thread, 

“. . . in the Septuagint, God provided a commentary and word study . . . The work of the early Greek translators of the Old Testament provided a ready made translational database for Jesus and the writers of Scripture”. (Emphasis mine –SMR)​
Likewise with the apostles – Paul and John – we see them using the words _pharmakeia_ and its cognates as such drugs are always connected by them with the magic arts, and in fact stand for them, even as Washington stands for the United States. Drugs stand for the magic arts – by synecdoche – being an essential ingredient in their activities.

As an example, I quote from the old ISBE,

“The word translated in the AV ‘witchcraft’ in Gal 5:20 (_pharmakeia_) is the ordinary Greek one for ‘sorcery,’ and is so rendered in the RV, though it means literally the act of administering drugs and then of magical potions. It naturally comes then to stand for the magician’s art, as in the present passage and also in . . . the LXX of Isa 47:9 . . . translated ‘sorceries’.” (_International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_, James Orr, Ed., Vol. 5, p. 3097.)​
In Acts 8 and 13 Simon and Elymus are respectively called “sorcerers”, and the underlying Greek there is _mágos_, a magician or sorcerer, a practitioner of the magic arts.

---------

Why this background information, and, some of you may say, why belabor this topic by going over it again? In a recent thread on marijuana (that “disappeared” due to the volatility of the issue) and the vote for and against it in California, when I took the position that, a) it should not be legalized, and b) it should _continue_ to be prohibited in Christ’s church, I met with much opposition on both counts. Perhaps some of it was honest misunderstanding. So I will seek to be clearer in how I present the matter here.

In this aforementioned thread I expressed surprise, and then some shock, to see what we in the churches in the last century held in consensus to be the Biblical view on marijuana and other drugs of that class, which was that it and they were classified as _pharmakeia_, and those who used them as _pharmakeus_, sorcerous drugs and sorcerers respectively, and as such strictly and incontrovertibly condemned by Scripture.

Perhaps a factor in this is that I’m 68 years old – not to suggest that my brain is addled (though some might disagree!) – but rather that in the 60s through the 90s of the last century the church’s testimony to the culture was quite different than what it is today. I came of age – and later, was converted – in those days. Back then, we had to stand against the drug use of the hippie / Woodstock counterculture and its actively seeking to lure souls into its false visions and promises through the use of a certain class of drugs, the psychedelics or hallucinogens, of which marijuana was a primary component, along with Lysergic acid diethylamide 25, or LSD, and others.

Most of the people on this board are a good bit younger than this, or if around my age, perhaps did not have direct involvement in or with the counterculture. At any rate, it’s a different world now than it was then! Two generations have sprung up with no knowledge of our struggles against the storm of false teachings, false spiritualities, and states of consciousness resulting from the use of those drugs, marijuana included.

When the Lord’s elect were confronted with exegetical evidence from Scripture concerning the drugs we took, we were convicted we were committing the sin of _pharmakeia_ – knowing full well from our experience that the word of God was true, and that the Lord had begun to fulfill His promise in our own generation: “I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers” (Malachi 3:5). Being moved with godly fear, we repented. So when we now hear from a new generation that does not know the Lord as we knew Him, say that marijuana is harmless when used “in moderation” and is “equivalent to alcohol” in its effects, we recoil from such sayings as much as we would if it were to be said that it is now accepted as Biblical teaching that oral sex is not fornication or adultery.

There is no doubt in my mind that the traditional teaching as regards _pharmakeia_ and marijuana – as well the other drugs in this particular class – is sound explication of God’s word and appropriately applied to a cultural issue of especial significance for these and coming days.

Given such certitude in the matter, my approach is as Paul’s concerning

“some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds);

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor 10:2-5).​
Should I not take this stance on a Biblical matter, even if others do not agree? I won’t take a stand like this with regard to things like baptism, or Bible versions, or eschatological views (excepting “Theonomy”), as godly men may differ in good conscience. The drugs are a different matter entirely, profoundly affecting the purity of the church for the worse.

Leveled as arguments against the view that marijuana is a “sorcerous” drug – that is, being in the condemned _pharmakeia_ category, are the following:

a) It is no different than alcohol.
b) As with alcohol it may be abused, but if used in moderation it is neither sinful nor harmful.
c) Medicinal use of marijuana has been proven beneficial, without ill effects. 
d) If it is used for mere pleasure / recreation without any intent to access the occult or engage in occult activities, then it does not fall into that class; in other words, _the purpose or intent_ determines the nature of the experience.
e) As it is not prohibited by Scripture, it is sheer legalism to prohibit it to Christians on that basis.
f) To say it should not be legalized is to multiply criminal and civil laws which are both expensive to maintain and oppressive to the population, and besides, the government should not interfere in the lives of its citizens by multiplying laws governing so many aspects of their lives.
g) It is mere superstition to attribute demonic (sorcerous) qualities to it, another example of over-the-top “pentecostal demonism”.
h) This view is generalizing from one’s personal experience and saying it must be so for others as well, which is fallacious.
i) Marijuana is not to be considered in the same class of drug as LSD, Peyote, Mescaline, Hashish, etc.
j) _No_ drugs in this class should be prohibited in the church or made illegal in the civil realm as God made them all, and all have their proper uses.
k) The Genesis 1:29 argument, that God made it for human consumption.

Responses to above arguments:

a) With regard to alcohol, it is an intoxicant that depresses the central nervous system and can lead to a temporary loss of control over physical and mental powers (cf. link: alcohol). Marijuana, on the other hand, is not a CNS depressant, but a psychoactive agent increasing awareness, and is classified as a hallucinogen. Those who say the effects of these two substances, alcohol and marijuana, are equivalent are ignorant of at least one of them, and betray their lack of qualification to discuss this knowledgably.

b) This assertion will be answered when responding to item d), as they are related.

c) First, I will post links to two articles which call this assertion into serious question, and then comment:

The Medical “Benefits” of Smoking Marijuana (Cannabis): a Review of the Current Scientific Literature

“Medical Marijuana” TRUTH AND LIES #1

Anecdotally, a recent NYTimes online ran an article titled, In Nederland, Colorado, Marijuana’s a Point of Pride, and a state official said, with regard to the high use of medicinal marijuana in the state, that there’s

“. . . a disproportionate amount of debilitating pain diagnosed in men in their 20s, state records show. ‘Who would think there would be such severe pain among young men in Colorado?’ said Ron Hyman, the state registrar of vital statistics . . .”​
These folks are no fools. They know the score, and how the “medicinal option” is – in the main – really being used.

I will mention again here, as I did in the disappeared thread, that while psychically “elevated” by marijuana one may experience a sense of detachment from the bodily source of pain, and thus a decrease in the sensation of its intensity, still, the very action that detaches from the pain will open one to other aspects of the “high” such as consciousness in a dimension not usually entered in the normal state of mind, that dimension spirits inhabit. Even were I (speaking personally) in extreme pain I would not opt for marijuana relief, as the “cure” would be far worse than the ailment: making myself vulnerable to demonic activity. More on this in the response to item d).

d) This is an interesting argument. Concerning any other drug and its effects on the human system, can it be said that those effects depend on the intent / purpose of the user? Or do the chemical properties of the drugs determine their effect? It is clear that people do smoke or ingest marijuana for different reasons, as is the case with other psychedelics; some for pleasure / recreation, some for spiritual / religious purposes, and some for the ability to function in the occult realms, and yet others for supposed medicinal purposes.

Jumping ahead to item h) for a moment, the psychopharmacological (the study of the affect certain drugs produce in the human psyche) effect of marijuana is similar to the other psychoactive drugs of this class – i.e., mind- or consciousness-expanding agents – and any difference is of degree and not of kind. They all are used as aids to give entrance to the dimension of spirits, and this is their primary use in certain religions and cults. Today the potency of some strains of marijuana are such that they may be on a par with the other drugs.

When the generation that was lured en mass into taking these drugs, some simply for pleasure, and some for the promise of spiritual illumination, became aware that there was far more to them than initially disclosed, they began to study the history and prior uses of the drugs – from marijuana and LSD (this latter a newcomer but similar) to mescaline and mushrooms – to try to gain an understanding of what they had done. Many who had commenced using marijuana, and the others, just for “recreation” but finding themselves open and vulnerable to occult forces, continued exploring this phenomenon of greatly heightened consciousness, some going on to the other drugs in the same class, while others became increasingly destabilized psychologically.

Those who used marijuana “recreationally” didn’t do so merely for the heightened taste of food or other sensual experience, but also for the much-touted enhancement of their mental powers and psychic abilities or intuition. They didn’t – at first – question where these enhancements came from, thinking it was perhaps just the properties of the drug – the active ingredient in it, THC – but experience quickly showed it was the nature of the psychic realm newly entered – or possibly forces within that realm – that was the source of the great increase of consciousness. The drug was an agent that transported the user into another dimension, and the dimension itself was the source of the new powers manifest both within and external to the user. These were, very many of them, initially “recreational” users, but now in over their heads. When these users began to be contacted by spiritual entities – some claiming to be ascended masters or other types of wise spirits, though others were openly malevolent – they realized they were out of their depth. They then pursued the knowledge of other religions and spiritual paths in attempts to get their bearings. Many of them were lured into Eastern spirituality or “earth spirituality”, such as Gaia. Multitudes were enveloped in the “strong delusion” (2 Thess 2:11) of the New Age paths. And many of these had just started out “recreationally” – curious about the heightened awareness promised. Others were more interested in finding a living and vital spiritual path – disgusted with the drug of the older generation, alcohol – and so pursued this as a religious quest. Sorcery or the occult were the farthest things from their minds!

When we found ourselves – the studious among us – in these depths, we began the study of comparative religions, from the known ones such as Buddhism, Zen, Hinduism, and Theosophy to the more obscure, such as the shaman ways of the Native Americans and other indigenous “primitive” groups, as certain South American tribes. Poets and adventurers among us trekked into South America to sample their wares and learn of their paths. It was, for many, the search for authentic spiritual paths, though others went over to the “dark side” and Satanism, voodoo, or Santeria.

We buried ourselves in books and studies about these substances that had propelled us into worlds unknown, unprepared for what came upon us, seeking understanding. The teachers that had appeared among us, such as Tim Leary of Harvard and Allen Ginsberg the poet, introduced us to the Eastern ways, with Leary translating Lao Tse’s _The Tao_ into _Psychedelic Prayers from the Tao Te Ching_ and _The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead_ (Tibetan Buddhism) into “psychedelese”, to help those floundering in these new worlds become stable. In fact, multitudes were lost eternally, and were it not for the Lord Jesus wading into our midst and calling His own to Himself out of this satanic whirlpool dragging souls into the maw of the devil, we also had been eternally destroyed.

But to us whose names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, it was on this wise: “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). He appeared to us, cutting through the bands of darkness with His presence, and we acknowledged to Him, “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple” (Ps 119:130). We cleaved to Him as unto life itself, multitudes of us from that generation. And we learned from His word understanding of the realm we had been rescued from.

So when I hear young people of today gainsay what we know of the word of God, and of the destruction He saved us from, I am obliged to bear witness to his saving power and wisdom, that yet another generation fall not into those pits. At least not from the body of professing believers.

e) This is a very serious argument, and it is eminently valid to raise the concern over it. Is it _really_ not prohibited by Scripture? Proceeding on the understanding that _pharmakeia_ in the law of Moses is identical with _pharmakeia_ in the New Covenant of Christ – which we shall here establish – we see that the death penalty was mandated in Ex 22:18 LXX for one who was a _pharmakos_ (AV “witch”, NASB “sorceress”), and in Deut 18:10 it is written, “there shall not be found among you . . . a _pharmakos_ (AV “witch”, NASB “sorcerer”). The meaning of this word in both Hebrew and Greek is that of one who practices the magic arts by use of drugs and potions. This is why both the Jews and the apostles used that specific word for this particular activity, rather than another word. In the OT a _pharmakos_ was to be destroyed from among the people, and in the NT excommunicated – the NT spiritual equivalent of death – from the life of the church, except there be repentance. In the NT it is explicitly said that the _pharmakos_ (“sorcerers” Rev 22:15 AV, NASB) had no place in eternity’s city of God , and the destiny of the _pharmakeus_ (also “sorcerers” Rev 21:8 AV, NASB) was to be the lake of fire. This is explicit prohibition sufficient to make it a Biblical command, and not a law of man. Those who would say I am “stretching the meaning of the Greek words” need to back up their claim with more than empty sound-bites.

f) With regard to marijuana’s legalization: in a republic such as ours we can vote over such things. And have I not the right to persuade voters against such a course by reasoned argument? I agree that our government – and not only the present administration – seems to be given over to the desire to regulate the very minutiae of our lives, which is a great danger. But consider, when sexually immoral people try to make laws enabling them to teach and promote their immorality in our children’s schools – discipling our children in their pernicious ways! – is it not appropriate to use the law, and the electoral process, to thwart their designs? Of course it is. 

The same applies to laws on drugs such as we are discussing. Would it be to a society’s health to have LSD legalized? Given sufficient dosages it is more potent than marijuana, and people talking it can easily lose control and run amok, though on a low dose it is not so dangerous _in that respect_. Yet it still, even in low dosages, gives the user – regardless of their intent when taking it – direct entrance into the presence of demons. [I shall deal with the allegations of delving in superstition and “pentecostal demonism” when we get to the next item, g) !] In that respect it is tremendously dangerous, 1) to individuals who may go to places in their spirits _multitudes_ of people have not returned from whole, and 2) to society, which would have to absorb and deal with the high velocity psychic power such individuals would be vessels or channelers of. As with LSD, so with marijuana, though perhaps (I say perhaps, as the potency of modern grass is far greater than it ever used to be) slightly diminished, yet still conducing to societal chaos. That’s what some people want!

We don’t want debauchers promoting their ways among our children, and we don’t want open occult madness arising in our cities and towns. As citizens we have the right to vote concerning those things which affect our society. I can make more of a case for this, but not now. I’m eager to get to the next item.

g) I do seem to notice an aversion to the general topic of the occult, sorcery, witchcraft, etc., and discussions concerning it – in which they are taken seriously – being likened to “pentecostal demonism” and superstition. Actually, it is right and fitting to be averse to such stuff! But it will not do in this day and age to run from them – _*or to denigrate those who focus vitally needed attention on the present threat of them!*_ – when the need is to firmly and without fear confront them. Let me elaborate.

First, of all people, Christians should be aware of the growing threat of occult activities in the culture. Or are we going to be the last to acknowledge these things, like the proverbial frog boiled in the pot who couldn’t tell the water was getting hot? I call this “the New York Times mentality” which is oblivious to the reality of God – hostile to those who mention it approvingly – and of all spiritual things: Heaven, Hell, salvation, angels, and demons.

But we should not be so. We should be aware: “There is no need for ignorance concerning the devices of the devil, for they are set forth plainly in the Word of God, and they are also visible all around us.” –Donald Grey Barnhouse. Visible in the “works of the flesh”, among which Paul singles out _pharmakeia_ as a notable one (Gal 5:20), even in his day.

These then are the issues: how continually do we abide in the presence of our Lord, and how alert are we to the temptations sent our way (or arising from within), and the tactics of the powers of darkness in affecting our immediate lives, our families, churches, neighborhoods, towns, cities, and nations? Are we awake, or asleep? Do we just pretend the Deceiver and Murderer of souls and of cultures is far from us? Can it be we have drunk too deeply of Babylon’s wine, anesthetized by our televisions, movies, tech toys, cool lives, and are now at ease in Zion (Amos 6:1)? It is a fault of the Reformed – some of them anyway – to deny or minimize the activities of the demonic world, lulled perhaps by the genuine truth that the preaching of the gospel is the most formidable weapon in the church’s armory, and they then just let the preachers preach and forget about the ravaging of the culture they are in, and supposedly not of. Nor is it only the culture being ravaged by the antichrist spirits and other demonic attacks, but the church of Jesus Christ is now beset by myriads of deceiving spirits bringing all sorts of diabolic doctrines and accompanying psychic phenomena into the very precincts of God’s temple. Now in this, the Reformed, being confessional, have a strong bulwark of defence many churches do not have; what I think is that some have been, as I said, lulled – into a blind complacency that just because they have confessional standards there is no more need for vigilance concerning those things the word of God says exist. 

So when I talk of the present activity of psychedelics / hallucinogens being Biblically-defined sorcery in the culture of the world – and seeking entrance into the church – I am told this is fostering “pentecostal demonism”! What a dark retort! This brings to mind the dread warning given the gainsayers in Isaiah 30:8-11.

Fie on such a calumnious slur! It really is a cover – a smokescreen – to whitewash a sinful activity behind deceiving (albeit possibly ignorant) words. Out of charity I will grant that.

Do those who coin such slurs even know what “pentecostal demonism” is about? It is the seeing a demon behind every tree, as it were. It is the so-called “sanctification by exorcism” craziness, which bypasses moral responsibility with supposed “power deliverances” – the which falsities David Powlison of CCEF refutes nicely in his, _Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare_. The Pentecostal / Charismatic “spiritual warfare movement” is indeed a bane to the church, but discernment of spiritual activities in modern-day Babylon and their threat to the church – many professing sectors of which are now _of_ Babylon! – is not part of that. When even true sectors of the church become complacent and anesthetized, they bristle when discernment ministries sound their alarms. But the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.

I agree that superstition is a thing which ought have no place in the people of God.

To enter into the record at this point a definition:

Superstition: 1 a. A belief, conception, act, or practice resulting from ignorance, unreasoning fear of the unknown or mysterious, morbid scrupulosity, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation. . . <_superstitions_ such as child-sacrifice, divination, soothsaying, enchantments, sorceries, charms, (by magic knots, spells, incantations), ghosts, spiritualistic mediums, necromancy> . . . b. an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from such beliefs, conceptions, or fears. 2 a. Idolatrous religion. . . 3: a fixed irrational idea : a notion maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary. (_Webster’s Third New International Dictionary_, 1971, p. 2296)​
It would seem to me that not only those who believe in so as to practice such ungodliness fall under this definition, but those who have an unreasoning fear of such things do as well. The people who know their God accept the testimony of Scripture concerning what is real, and are able to stand firm and fearless against any works of darkness in His name and by His word. We do not fight shadows, but know how to stand in the evil day (Eph 6:13).

h) There is also empirical data with regard to the affect of marijuana in the systems of those taking it, and many corroborating testimonies to that effect. It is not a valid objection in light of the “personal experience” of multitudes who have taken marijuana and like drugs – many for pleasure and recreation – only to find they have unwittingly entered a realm of danger and horror. There are others who have taken the drugs and had a great time, with no apparent deleterious effects, who found themselves strangely and increasingly estranged from the idea of the Christian God and moved toward the spiritual paths of the East, and of the occult. Those who say drugs, marijuana included, are spiritually harmless, seek to generalize from _*their*_ deceived experience (or just hearsay) and deceive the unwary with false reports of it being harmless to all who take it recreationally and “in moderation”.

i) There are so many variables here with regard to doses and quality. Some marijuana is more potent than some LSD; eaten marijuana, when rightly prepared, can be tremendously potent as a hallucinogen. Hashish is just concentrated resin from the marijuana plant and has the exact same chemical basis. Marijuana is as capable of enabling users to come into the presence of spirits as are LSD, Peyote, and Mescaline, and it has been used so by many spiritualist religions and cults. Comparative religion studies and historical studies of its use bear this out.

j) Why then _had_ God explicitly prohibited their use for the nation of Israel, and condemned the users to capital punishment, if they are good? One could as well say, “Why has God allowed the existence and the presence of the devil and his hosts to remain in the world, if there was not some good to be gained from them?” The answer is that we are called to have our “senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb 5:14), and to “put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean” (Lev 10:10). We are no longer in Paradise, and some plants and elements are poisons to our bodies, and some to our souls.

The government may rightly restrict the availability of poisons, given the treachery of human nature in using them. The church may (and should) prohibit that which God has prohibited in His word.

k) Genesis 1:29, when speaking of “herbs” (AV), says, “to you it shall be for food”. That does not given any warrant for smoking or ingesting marijuana, apart from nutritional purposes, but for altering the state of consciousness. It is precisely this altering of consciousness by means of a drug, and with the result of facilitating communion (intended or not) with God’s enemies – the demons – that is the condemned _pharmakeia_ in God’s word. This is not food.

In the sixties and onward we often heard the phrase, “the politics of consciousness.” This is the issue again with regard to the same drugs. LSD is once again being used (under special license) by the therapeutic community, there being a resurgence now of this supposed “therapeutic” use, per (among other sources) the NY Times of Apr 11, 2010: “Hallucinogens Have Doctors Tuning In Again”.

What some folks are saying is that they have the right to do what they will with their state of awareness. This sounds good enough, but in fact they are desiring to enter and commune with the denizens of a forbidden realm, the matrix of evil: the lair – indeed the _heart_ – of Satan. Awareness in this realm may not always appear to have anything to do with spirits or that evil one; they may be disguised as “angels of light” (2 Cor 11:14), or they may only manifest as benign impersonal spiritual illumination and energy, or as pleasure enhancers (for the “recreational” fools). The world may well obtain enough votes to pass this _pharmakeia_ into law. The Trojan horse of “medicinal marijuana” has already gotten its foot in the door. 

But in the communion of Christ we are not unaware of satan’s devices, that he should gain an advantage over us through deception.


----------



## TimV

I voted to legalize marijuana, but not because I want to see it used, but for many other reasons including the fact that if you give the State any right it doesn't have given to it in the Bible, they abuse that right. So, CA is broke, and our jails are full of people who's crime was to take an arbitrarily chosen plant and use it. Jail time doesn't do anything except ruin everyone's lives, that's why you don't have jail time under Biblical law.

Another reason is that it's arbitrary. I have a brugmansia in my front yard which is a much more powerful hallucinogenic than marijuana, and lots of people use it (not mine!). When will it end? I'll tell you, with the equivalent of men running their hands over other men's privates and women acting as unpaid p#rn stars at airports.

A scientific team found marijuana in some pipes dug up at Shakepear's house. Sherlock used cocaine in the books because the author did. It's only recently that the State has latched on to another area it claims jurisdiction over. If the church wants to regulate certain behaviors, the Church can do it through the disciplinary process. But sphere sovereignty dictates, In my humble opinion, that the State stays out of what plants people can grow and use, even if there's the possibility that they will be abused.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

You make some good points with regard to the civil realm, Tim. Whether they outweigh mine, I don't know.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim, after reflecting on your thoughts, I have a few questions.

I’m not clear what political philosophy you are speaking from. Care to clarify?

I would affirm that this particular political experiment, republican / democratic, is so far failing economically, politically, and morally due to the corruption of human nature in its citizenry and its leaders. Likewise the totalitarian regimes have failed in their experiments of political rule. All human governments are bound to fail. Islam seems to be thriving for the moment, but only due to its empowerment by spiritual forces and their doctrines which also are destined to fall.

I place no trust nor have real hope in political systems based in this world. Only one King has the wisdom, power, and right to rule, and He _is_ ruling now over all the earth from His throne in the heavens and will bring his base of operations to the earth when the New Jerusalem is established on it after the resurrection and great judgment. At that time God will dwell with humankind.

But back to the present day in California. These jails you speak of which are filled with people “who's crime was to take an arbitrarily chosen plant and use it” – did actually break the standing law. I seem to recall (Gov.) Arnie recently saying that possession of marijuana was only a ticketable offense, such as a driving ticket, so those folks in jail must have had quantity and/or intent to sell to be doing time. Am I right on this? If those in jail had obeyed God’s law and submitted “to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” (1 Pet 2:13 ff.) they would not be in the clink.

It’s true when you say you “don’t have jail time under Biblical law”, though under Biblical law – I gather you’re talking of Moses – those who broke his commandment on _pharmakeia_ would have been executed.

I _know_ most of these folks in jail didn’t intend to run afoul the _pharmakeia_ commandments, and I also realize that in a culture where vast multitudes commit the same violation, often unwittingly, it seems to be taking on a bizarre aspect. A _nation_ of _pharmakos_ (sorcerers)? That sort of reminds me of Rev 9:20, 21 where it is written of those who remained alive after a series of horrendous judgments wherein a third of humankind were killed, they still would not repent of their murders, _pharmakeia_, fornication, or their thefts. It sounds like a _mass_ of humankind were _pharmakos_ then.

I believe in the past you’ve said you were postmil, and I don’t know if you lean toward “Theonomic Christian reconstruction” of society as part of that, but how do you see the societal situation changing so as to move in the direction of the bettering of things, so that the drug problem we now have, along with the political madness and injustice we now see, will be brought more in line with God’s will?

There are folks who see the present state – the government – as satanic, and not to be obeyed, in part because of its taking to itself powers / functions not granted it by God. Would you consider this development a valid exemption to the Scripture when it says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God”? (Rom 13:1)


----------



## seajayrice

Facinating post Steve. Would the rampant use of anti-depressants and other psychotropics fall under the Pharmakeia label?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

No, CJ, just the hallucinogens / psychedelics.


----------



## TimV

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It’s true when you say you “don’t have jail time under Biblical law”, though under Biblical law – I gather you’re talking of Moses – those who broke his commandment on pharmakeia would have been executed.




Steve you asked about a hundred questions in that post! To take the most important to the discussion, what you say is nothing but a claim. You've created a whole detailed definition of witch which is indistinguishable from someone growing 10 pot plants instead of one.

You know, Mandrake wasn't used for having more babies. Read the context again from Gen. 30



> And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes. 15And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken away my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son's mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to-night for thy son's mandrakes. 16And Jacob came from the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for I have surely hired thee with my son's mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. 17And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob a fifth son.



It's assumed Mandrakes were some sort of fertility drug based on that passage, but reading in a bit more carefully there's no implication at all Mandrakes were involved in Leah's pregnancy. Mandrakes are today, and have been for 5000 years used to get a buzz. They take a long time to grow (I know, I've got one several years old) and are now, and have always been valuable. There are other examples in the Bible and the possession of them was never a crime. Practising sorcery has always been illegal or at least frowned on in all successful cultures. Over use of drugs has always been frowned on. Take the Land of the Lotus eaters for an example from antiquity. But the State has never, until recently claimed the right to tell you want plants you can grow or eat. It's not even hinted at in the Bible.

I used heroin just last week. It came from a legal opium farm (most are in India). The dentist asked if I wanted it, and I said yes. Most others here have used novocaine as well. Growing the opium poppy is illegal now for the first time in history, from what I can see (don't know that much about the opium wars, I admit). Go figure. Oh, the seeds are for sale on ebay. It's called the Persian Blue poppy, and it latex is about 90 percent heroin. They're really pretty


----------



## seajayrice

*You have changed my mind*

Thanks Steve. I had not considered marijuana hallucinogenic up to this point. If it is a hallucinogen (and I think you made your case that it is), we as Christians should not be making favorable comparisons between marijuana and alcohol usage. Nor should we be promoting what scripture condemns (the use of hallucinogens). Would that summarize the thrust of your OP?


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The drug was an agent that transported the user into another dimension, and the dimension itself was the source of the new powers manifest both within and external to the user. These were, very many of them, initially “recreational” users, but now in over their heads. When these users began to be contacted by spiritual entities – some claiming to be ascended masters or other types of wise spirits, though others were openly malevolent – they realized they were out of their depth. They then pursued the knowledge of other religions and spiritual paths in attempts to get their bearings. Many of them were lured into Eastern spirituality or “earth spirituality”, such as Gaia.



Mr Rafalsky, here is a hypothetical for you. What if, instead of believing that the drug transported them to a new psychic dimension they had simply said, "Wow, the brain does strange things when powerful drugs interact with its chemistry"? It seems to me that while the drug was the occasion, their openness to a new spirituality was really the proximate cause of their being deceived by false religions. And for that proximate cause to be effective, they had to attribute a spiritual significance to the state that was chemically induced; but _why should we give any credence to their attribution_?


----------



## MICWARFIELD

Steve,

You talk about "that class of drugs". Where does the bible teach that pharmakeia is referring to drugs like pot and LSD, but not aspirin or anti-depressants? Isn't our word pharmacy derived from pharmakeia? It seems to me that your argument using that word would have to include all drugs. Please show me where the scripture distinguishes between them. I wonder if your approving of some and not others is culturally rather than biblicaly influenced. 

Regarding yours and others personal experiences, there are just as many people who have not had those experiences at all. I have two close family members, who smoke marijuana medicinally. I've talked with them about it in-depth. It helps relax them, and helps take the edge off serious pain. One is a solid Reformed believer. She is a Godly woman. She smokes it in moderation. She would consider smoking it in excess to be sin. She has never had anything resembling a demonic experience. It doesn't lead her into sinful thoughts (none of us need pot to help us have those. Our own wicked hearts are sufficient), or into wanting to break God's law.

As for me, many years ago when I smoked marijuana, i did have demonic experiences at times. The difference is that, unlike my family members who smoke it, I was involved in many occultic activities and actually intentionally invited demonic activity into my life. I also had such experiences when not smoking pot or other drugs. I refuse to bind the consciences of others based on my experience. What matters is "What saith the scripture?'


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Tim, you wrote,

“what you say is nothing but a claim. You've created a whole detailed definition of witch which is indistinguishable from someone growing 10 pot plants instead of one.”​
Huh? Have you been hangin’ out by your mandrakes again? What I have asserted is that those who smoke or ingest marijuana and experience the affect of heightened consciousness have entered the state known as _pharmakeia_.

I can imagine someone growing 10 plants for the medicinal marijuana industry who doesn’t use them herself – this wouldn’t make her a “witch”. You’ll notice I’ve stuck with the Greek usage of _pharmakeia_ and _pharmakos_ so as to retain the original meaning related to the magic arts.

I’m not sure what Rachel wanted or had in mind with the mandrakes – the Scripture is silent on that – and speculation is not wise in this instance. 

In modern times I know that from it can be obtained deliriant (anticholinergic) hallucinogens such as scopolamine (“truth serum”), but it is frowned upon for “recreational” or deliberate _pharmakeia_ as it not at all a regular hallucinogen, but one which causes stupor, confusion (delerium), and disorientation.

I thought my other questions to you were pertinent to the issue of legality and the rights of the state, which you have important thoughts on – to me.

---------

CJ, yes, that would summarize it. Thanks for your comments.

---------

Hi Ruben,

That’s a discerning question. It’s not that they _believed_ the drug transported them to a new dimension – some of them didn’t want to believe it at all! – but that they _experienced_ phenomena, including interactions with conscious entities, in that realm. Yes, they were open to new experiences – that’s why they took the drugs – but not specifically to new _spiritual_ experiences, which predisposed them to following false religions.

I see your view is that the effect of the chemicals on the brain is simply the occasion and not the “proximate cause” of their experiences. What then, according to this hypothesis, _is_ the effect of the chemicals on the brain?

These hallucinogens are not like speed, which indeed gives tremendous psychic / neurological energy to the being as well as to the body of the user, or cocaine, which gives not only psychic / neurological energy, but also a psychic / sensual euphoria. The hallucinogens are really strange in this regard; instead of infusing power or euphoria into the system, it’s like they dismantle the controlling mind and will of the user and render the consciousness naked to a) its own energy and depths of being, and b) to the energy of high-velocity beings which inhabit the lower heavens (so to speak). It is this making the consciousness _naked_ and immeasurably deepened or enhanced in its apprehension of what is, that is the distinctive of these “pure” hallucinogens. Which is not to say that speed and coke may not have psychedelic effects, so that their activity may also be classed as _pharmakeia_. But these latter _are_ “powerful drugs interacting with the brain’s chemistry”, whereas the former bring an element into its action on the brain that renders it _open_ rather than “acted upon”.

I mean, here we are getting into that mysterious interaction / interrelationship between the physical brain and the immaterial spirit or soul of man, and as this is hard to define or delineate, so it is hard to define or delineate the actual affect of the _pharmakeia_ hallucinogens on the consciousness. They do more than act upon the physical brain, they also act upon / affect the spirit or soul of man, and it is _this_ quality that warrants the prohibition and the label “sorcery”. I cannot explain how this action or affect on the spirit works any more than I can explain the relation between the spirit and the brain. As Christians we know that when the body dies the spirit or soul continues on. Even as I write this my soul is determining what I will write, but my brain is making it happen in the physical world. When my brain dies I won’t be functioning in the physical world, but I will be with my Savior, as my spirit is united with His Spirit, even now.

The thing about the hallucinogens is that they bring the spirit of a man into intercourse with the spirits of the devils, even as the body and soul of a man may have intercourse with the body and soul of a harlot. The hallucinogens, in effecting this action, are condemned as agents of spiritual harlotry. They really are agents of it, and one may have intercourse with devils by this without being aware of what actually is going on.

Did they _mean_ to have this intercourse? I would say very few do it – or at least initially enter into it – knowingly. Like Noah when he was drunk; did he know he was in his daughters’ arms? But he was nonetheless, and the Moabites and the Ammonites were the fruit of his unions with them.

It is to make these things clear, and _known_ by the church so as not to defile herself, that I write. And I thank you, Ruben, for asking this question, so I would myself seek to become clear on it, and be able to put it in words. The graciousness of the Lord is amazing, turning our sin and failures to His glory.

--------

Mike, I'll have to get back to you later. It's past my bedtime here in this part of the world.


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> These hallucinogens are not like speed, which indeed gives tremendous psychic / neurological energy to the being as well as to the body of the user, or cocaine, which gives not only psychic / neurological energy, but also a psychic / sensual euphoria. The hallucinogens are really strange in this regard; instead of infusing power or euphoria into the system, it’s like they dismantle the controlling mind and will of the user and render the consciousness naked to a) its own energy and depths of being, and b) to the energy of high-velocity beings which inhabit the lower heavens (so to speak). It is this making the consciousness naked and immeasurably deepened or enhanced in its apprehension of what is, that is the distinctive of these “pure” hallucinogens. Which is not to say that speed and coke may not have psychedelic effects, so that their activity may also be classed as pharmakeia. But these latter are “powerful drugs interacting with the brain’s chemistry”, whereas the former bring an element into its action on the brain that renders it open rather than “acted upon”.
> 
> I mean, here we are getting into that mysterious interaction / interrelationship between the physical brain and the immaterial spirit or soul of man, and as this is hard to define or delineate, so it is hard to define or delineate the actual affect of the pharmakeia hallucinogens on the consciousness. They do more than act upon the physical brain, they also act upon / affect the spirit or soul of man, and it is this quality that warrants the prohibition and the label “sorcery”. I cannot explain how this action or affect on the spirit works any more than I can explain the relation between the spirit and the brain. As Christians we know that when the body dies the spirit or soul continues on. Even as I write this my soul is determining what I will write, but my brain is making it happen in the physical world. When my brain dies I won’t be functioning in the physical world, but I will be with my Savior, as my spirit is united with His Spirit, even now.
> 
> The thing about the hallucinogens is that they bring the spirit of a man into intercourse with the spirits of the devils, even as the body and soul of a man may have intercourse with the body and soul of a harlot. The hallucinogens, in effecting this action, are condemned as agents of spiritual harlotry. They really are agents of it, and one may have intercourse with devils by this without being aware of what actually is going on.



Mr. Rafalsky, this is the point where I find it quite difficult to reply. How can we know that we are being brought into contact with "high-velocity" beings? How can a drug transport us into another dimension, or open spiritual capabilities that are otherwise hidden? If a substance can bring me into contact with demons and make me vulnerable to them, could another substance take that away? I realize it may be unfair to ask you to demonstrate that pharmaceutical sorcery works, and to describe the mechanism by which it does so; but without that, I don't see why the demonic interpretation of these experiences should be accepted. For example, I have been told by people who have experienced it or knew someone who had, that awaking with a weight on one's chest causing difficulty breathing, and the sense of a malevolent presence, is a sign of demonic activity. The demon is preventing you from respiring normally. I have also read about this in a secular news magazine, so it seems like the phenomenon is fairly well recognized. But why should I think the phenomenon represents a demon instead of an unusual physical/mental reaction to waking up? And why would a demon want to briefly interfere with my breathing? Hellish evil seems like it would be involved in something more impressive than mischievous pranks. In the same way, why should I think that a hallucination reflects an objective reality in a spiritual dimension?

I'm no expert in drugs of any variety, nor in psychology, or any of the relevant fields. But to answer your question to me, the effect of the drugs on the brain appears to be (at least in a sufficient dose, and absent pain or other conditions where they might serve to normalize function) to derange it: as some drugs derange towards somnolence, some derange in other ways. Is it *necessary* to postulate more than that?


----------



## TimV

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I’m not clear what political philosophy you are speaking from. Care to clarify?
> 
> I would affirm that this particular political experiment, republican / democratic, is so far failing economically, politically, and morally due to the corruption of human nature in its citizenry and its leaders. Likewise the totalitarian regimes have failed in their experiments of political rule. All human governments are bound to fail. Islam seems to be thriving for the moment, but only due to its empowerment by spiritual forces and their doctrines which also are destined to fall.



OK, thanks, I'll plan on responding to a paragraph or so at a time. I do want to remark, though, that the last witch doctor session I sat through (after telling the guy I'd beat him up if my worker was injured by the visit) was, of course, tied in with medicinal plants. The main purpose of THAT session in THAT culture (yeah, I know lots about ayuasca) was to get the guy to barf, **** and pee himself out. There are plants that do that really, really well. A curse is often thought to be something that you can expel from the body. No spiritual beings real or imagined were involved in THAT session and culture.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist-libertarian with a Dooyeweerdian theonomic bent. So, sphere sovereignty is important to me, and I don't look favorably on the State when it starts claiming rights historically denied it by Christians. I can just see Martin Luther standing there when some freak orders Katie to get nakie butt for a bunch of peons, or to have a grinning overweight white guy grab his privates at an airport. Or to tell him what plants he can grow in his garden.

Yeah, we're on same page with the failure of the Evil Party and the Stupid party. I haven't voted for either in a long time.

I disagree about Islam. I think Iran's doing the best of all of them, and their only number 17 when in comes to GDP. That's a hunking drop from 300 years ago, as I think you'll agree. From what I've seen, the threat of something future, either real or imagined, is the driving force behind the really recent GOP type right wing hand wringing over Islam. If there are any spiritual forces backing Islam, the Chinese seem to have more powerful ethereal allies. And the weird combination of Russian Orthodoxy and Socialism could vaporise every Islamic country in the world with impunity, since Pak can't deliver it's nuke. Perhaps it's a Saint guiding Russia ?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

How in the heck can you smoke Pot in Moderation? That is new one on me. Do you mean that only one or two joints per day? I am quite familiar with the marijuana scene. And the end result is usually the same. There are much better drugs for pain than marijuana. Just my humble opinion. And they don't have the same side effects.


----------



## TimV

TimV said:


> was to get the guy to barf, **** and pee himself out.



Just so everyone knows, the slang term I used for stools started with a c and not an s


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

TimV said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> was to get the guy to barf, **** and pee himself out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so everyone knows, the slang term I used for stools started with a c and not an s
Click to expand...

 Luther would have used the S word in our culture.


----------



## Rich Koster

TimV said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> was to get the guy to barf, **** and pee himself out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so everyone knows, the slang term I used for stools started with a c and not an s
Click to expand...

 
I thought change was 6 letters, why only 4 *s ?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Steve - 

Wow. You put a lot more energy into that than I would have done.


----------



## Rich Koster

Brother Steve,

Would you be opposed to extracting THC for eye drops to bring relief from glaucoma? I know that they haven't perfected it yet, but would it be out of the sorcery camp if no one was getting high from the substance?


----------



## MICWARFIELD

Hey Martin, 
I'm not sure what your experiences are with Marijuana, but when I used to smoke it, there was a big difference between taking one or two hits and smoking one or two whole joints. One can smoke it occasionally and limit how many hits they take just as one can and should limit how many beers they drink. Do you not see the difference between someone who limits their smoking, and a "pothead" who sits around on their lazy butt smoking the stuff all day everyday?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

We had one toke back in my day. Red bud, Maui Wowie, what ever was around. The stuff grows naturally around here. All you have to do is run the corn fields in Rural Indiana. It was a cash crop here during WWII. So there is a lot of residual. I never really experienced any different effects. Either I was High or I wasn't. Didn't know it was something that came with a level of intoxicity. Either you got the High or you didn't. It always slowed down time for me and made me hungry. It also had other effects but they were basically the same. High / Not High. Not much of a go between. I don't think it is the same as LSD or Alchohol in it's effects. You can't OD on marijuana. You can on Alcohol and LSD. But the effects are not good in my estimation. I have friends who still use it also. One has a brain tumor. 

As I mentioned before. I think there are other pain medications that are so much more effective and better for the mind and soul. I would rather see a guy drink a few beers and drive instead of have a good ole bowl of marijuana and drive. Time slows down too much and the responsive action is way off when one smokes pot. 

As for the spirituality prospect of this conversation..... I think it is very harmful. I have a lot of experience in partaking of this and many other illegal substances. They are not good for the soul or well being. Alcohol can also be very bad. Believe me. I know.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rich Koster said:


> Brother Steve,
> 
> Would you be opposed to extracting THC for eye drops to bring relief from glaucoma? I know that they haven't perfected it yet, but would it be out of the sorcery camp if no one was getting high from the substance?


 
Rich, 

Supposedly, (as I understand it) the male flowering (only) plant doesn't contain THC which is the chemical which intoxicates. I wouldn't have a problem with something that heals.


----------



## Mushroom

Steve, I apologize for the use of the term pentecostal demonism. I see that it offended you, and while I may attach a different meaning to it than you do, having once been consumed by a form of it, my intent was not to extend a "calumnious slur", but to point out the fact that you are translating a subjective experience into something far more nefarious than it really is.

Brother, back in my drug-ingesting days, I knew folks like you. They tended to confer voluminously intricate spiritual meaning to very mundane things, and would apply that meaning to everyone, rather than see that they had vulnerabilities that were peculiar to themselves. I wasn't trying to 'expand my spiritual horizons' when I smoked pot. I was just trying to have a good time. While you may have been somewhat epicurean and eclectic in your use of drugs, I was more purely hedonistic. I did learn moderation, and understood that I was not as agile and clear minded after burning a big bowl-load as I could be by taking a very small bong hit and just getting a light buzz. I grew my own couple of plants indoors so I wouldn't support the criminal enterprises marketing it. In 1989 I came to the conclusion that to obey the magistrate's law that did not require me to sin was what a Christian is called to do, so I yanked my plants and flushed them. I smoked pot for 16 years, and never experienced the things you describe, because I'm just not the type of guy to trip like that. Early on I did try other drugs, but did not enjoy their effects, and didn't take them anymore. I have other vulnerabilities. If I were to foist the limitations I need to practice personally to avoid sin on others, I would be guilty of binding the conscience of others unbiblically. I believe that is what you are doing.

It may be helpful to you to realize that much of this is a form of materialism; laying the blame for some of your past misdirections at the foot of some quantity of plant material that you embue with spiritual power is avoiding the fact that you possess a proclivity that is peculiar to yourself, and of course some others, but not all. Just because you and the crowd you ran with delved into occultic matters and enjoined them to your drug use does not necessitate that everyone did or does.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ruben, you ask, “If a substance can bring me into contact with demons and make me vulnerable to them, could another substance take that away?” Oddly enough, yes. Thorazine, to name just one, can shut down consciousness to the point where this contact is at least muted. One is psychically numbed. There are many psychotropic drugs used to “chemically restrain” the psychotic, who are sometimes afflicted demonically.

-------

Mike, as I have pointed out here and elsewhere, there are three uses in Greek of the word _pharmakon_ (drug) and its cognates, those being medicine, poison, and sorcery, or use in the magic arts. In the Scripture – the NT, and the LXX of the OT – is it used exclusively for the magic arts.

I would not question the godliness of the family member who smokes marijuana for medicinal purposes. I just repeat a statement I made earlier in this thread:

*What I have asserted is that those who smoke or ingest marijuana and experience the affect of heightened consciousness have entered the state known as pharmakeia.*​
For a Christian it is extremely dangerous to their spiritual welfare. They may not be aware of the gravity of it, but that does not exempt them from its dangers. I wonder if you have looked through the OP and seen the response to item c) pertaining to medicinal use of marijuana. In it are two links to researchers who debunk the superior value of marijuana – especially “leaf marijuana” (as opposed to the extracts which are not used to get high) – and they support their findings. The first one is a recent review of the medical literature on the subject.

----------

Brad, here you go again:

“Brother, back in my drug-ingesting days, I knew folks like you. They tended to confer voluminously intricate spiritual meaning to very mundane things, and would apply that meaning to everyone”​
Because you knew some people who did this sort of thing, and liken me to them, by this fallacious logic you would seek to overthrow the force of my argument and evade the conclusion. It is not “intricate spiritual meaning” but Biblical exposition and application concerning certain drugs – although I admit I have gone on voluminously, that is, _thoroughly_, to make a cogent case.

That you did not experience explicit occult phenomenon in your 16 years of marijuana use certainly does not remove you from the category of “those who smoke or ingest marijuana and experience the affect of heightened consciousness [and] have entered the state known as _pharmakeia_. So you were a hedonistic _pharmakos_, content to play in the heightened sensuousness of the material realm. I grant you that you were not an “occult practitioner”, but it was _pharmakeia_ nonetheless. According to Revelation 9:21 it will be a widespread phenomena in the close of time, and men will be unwilling to give it up. No doubt many will not be “occultists”, but merely lovers of heightened pleasure through the use of drugs – these also are included in the term _pharmakeia_. The devil is not always obvious. The jaws of death may often be in the bite of exquisite pleasure. It is of God’s mercies that He called you out of the life you were in, just as He did me.

----------

Ultimately it will be up to the pastors and elders governing the house of God to make the determination regarding marijuana and those drugs in the same category, whether or not they are to be considered in the _pharmakeia_ class.

There is exegetical evidence, historical evidence, the evidence of cults and other groups using these drugs for both occultic purposes, and as folks here have made clear, for heightened pleasure by means of _pharmakeia_. In the fear of God we are to govern the church, which is the Bride of God the Son, that she be presented pure and without spot or blemish at His appearing.

I would prefer to wind down involvement in this thread – I have sermon prep coming up – and if a mod wants to shut it down it would be fine with me. I have made my case, and accomplished my purpose.

Ben, I went to such lengths as it is so important an issue for the purity of the church in these times, and in the days to come.


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Rafalsky, I appreciate that you have no more time for involvement in this thread: thank you for your clear answer to one of my questions. I'm also somewhat disappointed, because I was hoping for some additional explanation.

You see, I haven't seen any evidence to substantiate that we can be chemically exposed to or protected from demons. I've seen a demonic interpretation put on hallucinogenic experiences, but no proof that this is, in fact, what it is. The word-study argument doesn't bring us to the conclusion that there are occult substances: it suffices for no more than to show that since "potions" have always been a part of magical practice (and as Tim pointed out, sometimes those potions work medicinally: witch doctors have often been doctors, as well as witches) magical practice can be called "potioneering". From that statement to THC bringing us into occult realms, or into contact with high-velocity beings is a journey whose intermediate steps have not been made plain. 
Perhaps I speak as a fool here, because I have no conscious acquaintance with hallucinogens. But it seems to me that the primary tool of demons is deceit: and one of their prime deceits has been superstition. Until further evidence appears, belief in occult substances seems to me to be superstitious. And if thorazine counters occult substances, does that mean that it is a sacred substance? I don't mean to misrepresent your views, or tax you with things you don't hold. But I don't see my way to understand how the views you have expressed don't logically involve a great deal more. And my grand objection to the complex of ideas that seems to be suggested, is that it is not hallucinations, but belief of a lie that ruins souls, and that must then be the great end of demonic activity: to deceive, and thus to destroy, humanity. To that end, spiritism and materialism are equally useful. So of course one can recognize demonic activity within the drug culture: deceiving people into thinking that these experiences contain a spiritual significance and thus leading them into the paths of false religion. But then one can also recognize demonic activity in totalitarian political philosophies, or in the insistence that humans are merely advanced animals among other, essentially similar, brutes. The common element isn't a spiritual dimension or high velocity psychic energy, but lies.
And so I reiterate my question from before: are we particularly vulnerable to demonic attacks when waking up, and is it a priority for demons to briefly interrupt our breathing?


----------



## seajayrice

Alternate consciousness is something that is difficult to explain and quantify. Ergot (that’s ergot not ergo) and witchery have a long history in Europe as does Peyote in the America’s. Definitely used in the Pharmakeia way.


----------



## TimV

Peyote is a particularly beautiful plant that looses much of it's properties when grown in a greenhouse. Yet it's illegal to have one of the 4 species but not the other three which have similar properties. Aztekium is more powerful still, and perfectly legal. A passing hippy lusted after mine so I hid it.


----------



## py3ak

seajayrice said:


> Alternate consciousness is something that is difficult to explain and quantify. Ergot (that’s ergot not ergo) and witchery have a long history in Europe as does Peyote in the America’s. Definitely used in the Pharmakeia way.



Sure, altered consciousness is difficult to explain: that doesn't mean that invoking demons or occult realms is the right explanation. The behaviour of photons is also difficult to explain, after all. No doubt drugs have a long history of being used for putative contact with the devil; but that doesn't mean I have to accept that interpretation of the drug-induced state.


----------



## seajayrice

py3ak said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alternate consciousness is something that is difficult to explain and quantify. Ergot (that’s ergot not ergo) and witchery have a long history in Europe as does Peyote in the America’s. Definitely used in the Pharmakeia way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, altered consciousness is difficult to explain: that doesn't mean that invoking demons or occult realms is the right explanation. The behaviour of photons is also difficult to explain, after all. No doubt drugs have a long history of being used for putative contact with the devil; but that doesn't mean I have to accept that interpretation of the drug-induced state.
Click to expand...

 
Why do you suppose the practitioners of hallucinogenic sorcery choose the compounds they choose to get "high." Why not just get drunk?


----------



## py3ak

seajayrice said:


> Why do you suppose the practitioners of hallucinogenic sorcery choose the compounds they choose to get "high." Why not just get drunk?



Because different substances give different experiences (by affecting different parts of the brain, or by affecting it in different ways). Some people like one thing, some people like another. From what I've read, focussed attention on a strobe light can produce an impact on the brain similar to that of taking mescalin. Does that mean that strobe lights communicate high-velocity psychic energy?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ruben, I'll be pondering your questions in the meanwhile, to see if I can give a cogent answer.


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben, I'll be pondering your questions in the meanwhile, to see if I can give a cogent answer.



Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky. I'm eager to learn more.


----------



## Mushroom

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Because you knew some people who did this sort of thing, and liken me to them, by this fallacious logic you would seek to overthrow the force of my argument and evade the conclusion.


But Steve, you are doing exactly the same. Because you did that sort of thing, you assume everyone did, whether they realize it or not. Same fallacy of generalization. I am not evading your conclusion. I've heard the same stretch from pentecostal preachers on this very subject throughout the years, and the premise is simply unsupportable biblically. I don't mean to upset you, Steve, but I do think you find it difficult to accept that not everyone suffers from your particular proclivities because this whole thing is a part of the narrative under which you have been operating for some time and it is hard to lay aside. Were you ever a pentecostal or charismatic? If so, did you come to these conclusions back then? Again, if so, maybe it's time to rethink these matters with the idea that one should accept their own culpability in sin (even occultic sin) rather than strive to lay the blame on 'demonic plants'.

I asked before, but never saw an answer, since magnets were used often by sorcerers, why shouldn't we by your logic conclude they are embued with demonic power, and so avoid them? Or drums? Or pointy hats?

A Christian may use many things the Lord has provided in acceptable ways that unbelievers will often misuse and attach evil meaning to, alcohol and tobacco for instance. Ever seen a voodoo practitioner with a bottle of rum and a cigar in his mouth? That does not mean that rum or cigars are prohibited by scripture, it means that we should not practice voodoo.


----------



## seajayrice

Are you guy’s giving Steve a rough time or is this some form of “let’s play seminary?” Do you suggest scripture does not forbid the uses of hallucinogens?


----------



## Mushroom

seajayrice said:


> Are you guy’s giving Steve a rough time or is this some form of “let’s play seminary?” Do you suggest scripture does not forbid the uses of hallucinogens?


Common sense forbids the use of hallucinogens, scripture does not specifically, but it does infer so by the admonition to be sober-minded. Marijuana is not an hallucinogen. It may be that some folks have experienced hallucinations during ingestion of large quantities, but the same is true of alcohol. And there are folks who will hallucinate after ingestion of both small amounts of alcohol or pot. Those folks should avoid those things.

I think the differences are matters of sound exegesis and logical inconsistencies.


----------



## seajayrice

Brad said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you guy’s giving Steve a rough time or is this some form of “let’s play seminary?” Do you suggest scripture does not forbid the uses of hallucinogens?
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense forbids the use of hallucinogens, scripture does not specifically, but it does infer so by the admonition to be sober-minded. Marijuana is not an hallucinogen. It may be that some folks have experienced hallucinations during ingestion of large quantities, but the same is true of alcohol. And there are folks who will hallucinate after ingestion of both small amounts of alcohol or pot. Those folks should avoid those things.
> 
> I think the differences are matters of sound exegesis and logical inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

 
Dude, you must have smoked some pretty bogus weed. Interesting comment though, some of the research indicates that certain strains are hallucinogenic, others are not. Anyone that has smoked cheap pot and also sampled the high THC varieties would attest to that point.


----------



## TimV

Joshua said:


> How do you know that? Are you peering into his heart!? or did he just tell you?



Josh you are one of the select few who get my humor. He was riding by on his bike, saw my greenhouse and asked to look at it. I let him in, and when hes saw my _Aztekium ritteri _he said he ate one in November and talked to god until Christmas. So I took the ID label off.


----------



## Kim G

Brad said:


> Marijuana is not an hallucinogen. It may be that some folks have experienced hallucinations during ingestion of large quantities, but the same is true of alcohol. And there are folks who will hallucinate after ingestion of both small amounts of alcohol or pot. Those folks should avoid those things.



I'm not qualified to speak about these drugs, and I've only had alcohol in such small amounts that I couldn't even get buzzed, but I do have one comment. I haven't had a solid night's sleep in 13 months because my 13-month-old son hates sleep. I've been so deprived that I live in a constant state of heightened awareness/fight or flight and the nerves of my skin are always burning. When my son was a few months old, I was so so tired one night that I started feeling bugs crawling all over me, but they weren't really there. The lack of sleep messed with my brain. Like too much alcohol can mess with your brain. Or drugs can mess with your brain. It's PHYSICAL, not necessarily spiritual.


----------



## Mushroom

seajayrice said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you guy’s giving Steve a rough time or is this some form of “let’s play seminary?” Do you suggest scripture does not forbid the uses of hallucinogens?
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense forbids the use of hallucinogens, scripture does not specifically, but it does infer so by the admonition to be sober-minded. Marijuana is not an hallucinogen. It may be that some folks have experienced hallucinations during ingestion of large quantities, but the same is true of alcohol. And there are folks who will hallucinate after ingestion of both small amounts of alcohol or pot. Those folks should avoid those things.
> 
> I think the differences are matters of sound exegesis and logical inconsistencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, you must have smoked some pretty bogus weed. Interesting comment though, some of the research indicates that certain strains are hallucinogenic, others are not. Anyone that has smoked cheap pot and also sampled the high THC varieties would attest to that point.
Click to expand...

What I understood, having grown my own for a long time, is that different strains and different methods of cultivation will produce greater or lesser content of THC and other related cannabinoids that will require greater or lesser amounts to produce the intended effect, and it was necessary to adjust accordingly. I will say, however, that I've smoked to excess most of the more potent strains such as Thai (indica or skunk) and Hawaiian (sativa) sensimillas, and never experienced any hallucinations. Perhaps it affects you in different ways. As I said, most drugs, including alcohol, are capable of producing hallucinatory experiences in some people at varying amounts of ingestion.

All this is moot, however, since it's use is prohibited by law. Obeying that law does not cause us to sin, therefore as Christians we should not use it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ruben, regarding the “weight on the chest” when awaking, I have no clue to what this might be. There are all sorts of paranormal phenomena that are in human experience, and these are not my concern here, as they are not relevant to the matter at hand. Your surmisings about the “weight” may well be right.

You said, “I haven't seen any evidence to substantiate that we can be chemically exposed to or protected from demons.” Some points of clarification: Thorazine doesn’t “counter occult substances”, it merely shuts down parts of the brain so that perception and affect are muted. Its action is physiological although it does obviously affect the soul. 

Nor would I call hallucinogens “occult substances”; they are chemicals which have a certain action on the brain and nervous system. I think I see what your view is: you simply do not believe they have the effect that is claimed for them.

Let me ask you this then: what do you think the _pharmakeia_ in Scripture refers to? Most of the translators render the word “sorcery” or “sorceries”, and its cognate, _pharmakos_, “sorcerer”. What do you think Paul in Galatians 5:20 or John in Revelation 9:21, 18:23, and 21:8 were talking about? Do you think there is any such thing as sorcery, that is, the use of drugs in the magic arts, and that it is an aid to some in having intercourse with the demonic world? Or do you think this is all “superstition”? If so, what is the Scripture talking about in these instances?

It is telling when you say, “I have no conscious acquaintance with hallucinogens”. You really are venturing an opinion in an area where you have no experience. Not that having no experience is a bad thing! Multitudes that have had it have perished and are destroyed. An entire world has been profoundly affected by it (Rev 18:23), even if unknowingly.

I would agree with you that one of the devil’s primary weapons is deception. He uses it to incite people – and peoples – to murder, and also to hate Christians. He used the drugs in question to deceive on a vast scale (Rev 18:23). You just don’t believe chemicals can have the effect pointed to by the term _pharmakeia_.

-----------

Brad,

I hear loud and clear that you never had hallucinations from the marijuana or the other drugs you took, though the primary effect of hallucinogens is – oddly enough – not hallucinations but increased awareness; hallucinations may well be part of the experience, but not necessarily so.

Now what you say about a proclivity peculiar to me indeed influencing the type of experience I had – along with vast multitudes of others in my generation worldwide – is true. That your proclivity influenced your experience is likewise true. You were into pleasure and having a good time. The drugs lured both of us – with our differing proclivities – unwittingly into _pharmakeia_, though you strenuously deny you were any such thing.

I will repeat what I said above:

That you did not experience explicit occult phenomenon in your 16 years of marijuana use certainly does not remove you from the category of “those who smoke or ingest marijuana and experience the affect of heightened consciousness [and] have entered the state known as _pharmakeia_”. So you were a hedonistic _pharmakos_, content to play in the heightened sensuousness of the material realm. I grant you that you were not an “occult practitioner”, but it was _pharmakeia_ nonetheless. According to Revelation 9:21 it will be a widespread phenomena in the close of time, and men will be unwilling to give it up. No doubt many will not be “occultists”, but merely lovers of heightened pleasure through the use of drugs – these also are included in the term _pharmakeia_. The devil is not always obvious. The jaws of death may often be in the bite of exquisite pleasure. It is of God’s mercies that He called you out of the life you were in, just as He did me.​
I would hope you will not misrepresent what I say by ignoring this.

You say it is “binding the conscience” to term the use of these drugs _pharmakeia_ just because the experiences of yourself and some others were not _manifestly_ occultic. It is the _Scripture_ which binds the conscience. By your saying “Scripture does not specifically . . . forbid the use of hallucinogens”, it seems to me you would have all drugs available for use if they were but legal. Would you care to tell me then what you think Scripture refers to when it uses the term, _pharmakeia_?

Your comments about the magnets and pointy hats are silly, and do not warrant a response. They have nothing to do with _pharmakeia_, just old stereotypes like the red devil with a pitchfork.


----------



## Mushroom

Steve, is it possible that you are on some level idolizing the '60's and the supposed 'enlightenment' that occured during that time by elavating it above other periods of human history? I grew up on the waning edge of that era, and to be honest, thought most of you (the 'we' you refer to over and over again in your OP who apparently had a monolithic experience) took themselves far too seriously in their spoiled first-world arrogance. I read Leary. I read Ginsburg. I thought they were boneheads trying to veil their personal debaucheries with smokescreens of twisted philosophy and amalgamizations of various religions. I was not impressed. It may come as a surprise to many of those who 'experienced' the '60's that the perceived 'cataclysmic' changes that occured then were not so new, nor so peculiar to that time. The lionization of it has more to do with the navel-gazing self-absorption of a generation of spoiled and accomodated children who assumed their experience was somehow weightier than that of generations past, or that of those contemporaries who had to actually (gasp!) labor for their bread and didn't have time to ponder their insignificance. Man is depraved, and has since Adam sought ways to justify or excuse their wicked pursuits. Whether simple or intricate, those constructs are all worthy of derision. Idle sinners with more time on their hands tend to come up with more intricate versions.

Men have, do, and will employ everything they can get their hands on for sinful purposes, whether pot, plutonium, or peanut butter. The sin is not in the material, it is in the man. Inferring that demons occupy material objects is a form of animism. Yes, there are substances that can be used in very deleterious ways. Take plutonium, for example. Eating it would be a very foolish thing. In weapons it is incredibly destructive. But it has been used to produce huge amounts of useful energy. The evil it can be used to produce does not reside in the plutonium, but in the men's hearts who would so employ it. The same is true of what we are discussing. If you were to argue that pot has dangerous physical, mental, or emotional effects over short- or long-term, you may have a valid point. Then we could discuss the level of danger, whether personal or societal, and try to determine the warrant for it's prohibition in terms similar to that of plutonium, a very dangerous substance worthy or strict control. But when you try to argue that there's a demon in that there plant, you are veering off the course of reasonable, and scriptural, debate. The much-hallowed sixties notwithstanding, this is blaming the plutonium for the bomb.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Brad, your critique of the 60s generation has a good bit of truth in it, but where were you at when reading Ginsberg and Leary? Were you a Christian then? What was the music you liked to listen to back then? The singers you loved? Or the poets? I don’t have a sense of the state of mind you had while critiquing that generation. Were you a Christian in the 16 years you were smoking grass?

When you say things like, “Inferring that demons occupy material objects is a form of animism” and “when you try to argue that there's a demon in that there plant, you are veering off the course of reasonable, and scriptural, debate” you seriously misrepresent me. Please don’t do it deliberately for rhetorical effect, for that would be a 9th commandment violation.

I have _never_ said that demons “inhabit” or are “in” the hallucinogens – are you trying to build up a caricature that’s easy to tear down, a straw man? – for these are real chemicals, strictly physical, that produce weird affect in the human system. From your ridicule of the concept of _pharmakeia_ I gather you are a materialist when it comes to sorcery. I asked you above, what then does the sorcery spoken of in the NT refer to? Are drugs involved in it? Just what is it? How do you exegete that word?

It’s true, the sixties counterculture was my generation – my people – and I love them, the souls, many of whom are yet alive. But I do not “idolize” them, for they – the generation – were unwittingly the instrument of a horrific psychic assault on humankind, from which it shall not recover until the Lord returns and cleanses the creation from everything that defiles it. By witness and intercession I seek to salvage souls presently en route to eternal horror.

But the counterculture folks are not my only “people” – so are the Jews – and for that matter so are all humankind, as we are of one blood, and all ensnared and blinded by “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) through wicked unbelief. It is a terrible thing to be lost and about to enter a torment which shall never end. Never.

I am not a materialist when it comes to the devices of Satan. Nor am I a Pentecostal (no, I have never been one, although I have been in their churches, and some are dear friends) to go overboard on the demonic. But I think you downplay the devices of evil, are sort of a materialist as regards them, whistling in the dark, and tossing out little derision-balls to try to neutralize the threat of reality.

And what is reality? We walk with the Lord, we are in Him, and He is in us, as we walk through alien territory (strangers and pilgrims in it). The culture about us is increasingly energized by “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience” (Eph 2:2), and if they can but legalize _pharmakeia_ that will sure be a feather in the cap of the invading forces. Actually, it is already a fait accompli through the Trojan horse of “medicinal marijuana” – the foot’s in the door – and apparently it is the design of Providence to allow evil to sweep though the world at the end of days; already the church is going through fiery trials in the third world at the hands of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Communists, etc., but the flood that shall come upon us in the “civilized” West will be at least as fierce; _pharmakeia_ is a growing wind in the sails of the power of darkness. But what does Luther say?

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us, 
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us: 
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him; 
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure, 
One little word shall fell him.​


----------



## Philip

Jerusalem Blade said:


> From your ridicule of the concept of pharmakeia I gather you are a materialist when it comes to sorcery.



I would call him an anti-materialist.

Steve, I happen to think that you're going to need a bit more empirical evidence on this one in order to prove that _pharmakeia_ actually is a reference to hallucinogenic drugs. I usually have interpreted it as potioneering (ie, substances where humors of the body were supposedly manipulated to produce effects like love or which would give the user abilities). In medieval times it was assumed to be some sort of alchemy. I don't see how your hypothesis is any more or less plausible than these other than the fact that it is more applicable currently.


----------



## Mushroom

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Brad, your critique of the 60s generation has a good bit of truth in it, but where were you at when reading Ginsberg and Leary? Were you a Christian then? What was the music you liked to listen to back then? The singers you loved? Or the poets? I don’t have a sense of the state of mind you had while critiquing that generation. Were you a Christian in the 16 years you were smoking grass?


I was not a Christian when I read Leary and Ginsberg. I listened to rock. I have never 'loved' a singer except when my wife decides to break out in song. I was never much for poetry. I did smoke pot after I was baptized at age 20. Some of those times I considered myself a Christian. 

I was a young man very skeptical of the pseudo-spiritual babblings of my immediate elders, of whom my oldest brother was a member. He is typical in my mind of that ilk - never did much of anything productive, found cosmic reasons for his debaucheries that left 4 children with 3 mothers without a father and unsupported their entire childhoods, preached revolution but balked when it came to the concept of actually fighting for his ideals (which is true of all those sixties 'freedom fighters' who ended up becoming stockbrokers and gov't school teachers), and since he found it easier to 'expand his horizons' (read feed his habits and dodge child support) in Europe, has finally recently renounced his US citizenship for that of Germany after 22 years there, and will in January enter an assisted care facility at the age of 57. He was much enamored of poetry, Leary, Ginsberg, Ram Dass, & etc., and is as in awe of the sixties as you appear to be. Hogwash. There was nothing new about that generation. They accomplished nothing but the abandonment of a whole region of the Earth to committed atheist murderers (ask a Cambodian). They were and are sinners scurrying about looking for cloaks of darkness under which to hide their sin. Romanticizing them is asinine. Caring more particularly for them than all the other perishing souls in the world is being a respector of persons. That is sin.

I used drugs to simply enjoy their effects, period. If I didn't enjoy them, I didn't take them anymore. I wasn't seeking spiritual enlightenment through them. You're just going to have to accept that your experience was not monolithic, and that you occultic experience from them was a result of the fact that you were seeking... _occultic experiences_. You got what you were after. Many folks who have used drugs weren't. I'm worried that if you'd have been seeking occultic experiences with magnets, you'd have the same feelings towards them as you do drugs, but it would be more obviously wacked, so you'd keep it to yourself. This is like wanting to ban cardboard because Ouija boards are made out of it. I am sorry if this bursts your bubble of a narrative that seems so dear to you that you find it needful to interject it ad infinitum whenever a question about pot arises on the forum. As I've stated before, there are sound reasons that can be argued for it's prohibition, although I am not in full agreement with them, but the one you advance is seriously flawed.

Sorcery was the use of various tools to deceive others into fearing false gods or false powers so as to manipulate their actions. Drugs of various kinds were used I'm sure, as were magnets, sleight-of-hand, and anything else a practitioner could employ to accomplish that task. It was not the materials used, but the purpose for which they were employed that was the sin. If someone can use those items for an edifying purpose, then there is no sin attached to it. You used pot to reach some higher spiritual plane, a cancer patient uses it to alleviate the nausea brought on by chemotherapy. Yours was sin due to your intent. Theirs, my brother, is not.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dear Brad,

I think the “sorcery” and marijuana discussion is secondary to our – you and me – coming to terms as men who are both in the Lord’s service and care. I really won’t accept being trashed along with my generation for coming from whence I did; the sovereign Lord determined my lot in life, and my way, and brought me to repentance. I am not your eldest brother (after the flesh) nor like him, though I am an older brother to you in the presence and family of our God.

To project onto me – and the counterculture generation I was of – the attributes, irresponsibility and style of life of your brother is an invalid generalization. If there is a root of bitterness in you toward him it is not appropriate to direct it at me. Neither I nor my generation lived as he did, though no doubt there were a number of deadbeats, freeloaders, and bums, just like in your generation. Your bitterness is defiling, for it falsely attributes qualities and attitudes peculiar to him onto me, and onto others, which is slanderous. Are your feelings toward him so overwhelming that you cannot stand back and consider the seriousness of what I am saying to you? We were not all like him.

I do thank you for sharing from the heart about your early life. I appreciate knowing more about you, with whom I’m interacting on an in-depth level.

I see you’re quite heartfelt in this your latest response. I’m sorry that your oldest brother was a grief and great disappointment to you. I can see that you identify me with him, partly because we had some similar roots in our experience. I can viscerally _feel_ the anger you have for me – in the things that you have said in this last post – as well as the strong disdain. It is a projecting onto me what is really toward another, for I am not him, nor like him, nor have I had a life like his.

Perhaps if _I_ share a little from the heart about my life you will see that I am _not_ to be identified with your brother. But I will not let you tangle me in the issues you have with him, for it’s a false thing to paint me with the same brush you paint him.

I quit high school in my senior year at 17 when my mom died of cancer so I could join the Marine Corps. I had a wild streak in me that I had restrained for her sake. A close friend of mine was a Marine, and he was an influence in my choice. I passed my high school GED while in ITR (Infantry Training Regiment – a training period after boot camp). I saw no combat during my enlistment, and after I got out went to college for a couple of years. It was in this period a couple of close friends of mine turned me on to mescaline. I had no idea what it was about. But that marked the beginning of a search to find out what was what concerning philosophy, religion, and human consciousness.

The family I’d grown up in was well-to-do, and my dad was the vice president of Central Synagogue in Manhattan. Due to my mom’s illness I went away to boarding schools from around the age of 7 or 8, so these two friends, who lived near our family home in Manhattan, were dear to me, and I would see them whenever I was back in the city. I guess it could be said of me I was “culturally deprived” and they were serious artists (musician and dancer).

The mescaline I’d taken with them changed the course of my life. I had no idea what it was about, but I trusted them and loved them. They were also lovers of the arts, and I learned a lot from them. They weren’t hippies, but artists, and were “experimenting with consciousness” as many artists, and both students and teachers in academia did – not to mention the military intelligence agencies, politicians, psychiatrists and others in the therapeutic community, some of these latter for warfare, and others for healing. There were many who experimented with the drugs of that time, and not all were of the “ilk” you so disdain. 

I don’t think it's productive arguing with you as to whether or not the generation that was spiritually ensnared by the drug scene was “monolithic” – a vast block of people – or if your scene of happy little hedonistic potheads were representative of the times. I think the primary issue is, What are the thoughts and feelings you are sending out, and are they appropriate to the discussion at hand?

I have taken an exegetical stand concerning the illicitness of the drugs, and get a very personal attack from you. An attack that is really directed at your brother. Whatever his and his friends “pseudo-spiritual babblings” were, for you to generalize them to all others of that time is bitterness run amok, for there were serious seekers and thinkers trying to understand life, and the possibility of salvation. Bitterness doesn’t care to understand other people and their lives, it wants to crush them, to stand on their necks. In Christ we don’t treat even our enemies this way.

At any rate, by the time I was 26, I was a writer and poet, and deeply involved in studying the Eastern spiritual paths. I was also a student of the Austrian psychiatrist, Wilhelm Reich, whose bio-energetic approach to health seemed right to me. Then, visiting a camp for emotionally disturbed children I had worked at (the camp season was over) to pick up a camera I’d left there from the caretaker’s family, the wife started telling me about Jesus, and during that encounter the Holy Spirit shone in my heart and revealed the risen Lord Jesus to me, and I was converted then and there.

It’s a long story how the Lord delivered me from all the sin and junk I’d been in, and I won’t go into that here, but deliver me He did. I continued in the field of human services, working through the years with the learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, mentally retarded, gifted, and psychiatric disabilities. I loved the work, and I loved the people I served.

I had backslidden for a long period, partly due to a deceived view of fasting, connected with the scourges of Wesleyan second-blessing perfectionism and Finney’s Pelagian will-power approach to sanctification. Part of that time I was in NYC and then to Woodstock to raise my daughter – I was a single parent caring for her from around 3 years old till her teens.

The most notable thing about those years is the patience and care of the Lord, and the remarkable way He got me back to Himself, and established me in Him. It was an experience of grace when I was almost a goner, and then being associated with a couple of Reformed churches, where I learned the doctrines of grace, that stabilized my walk with Him.

I want to say it very loud and clear, that not all of the counterculture / Woodstock generation were of the ilk you have such . . . what? – is hatred too strong a word? – such vehement feeling toward. You say it is a sin to care more for a particular segment of the world’s people than others? But it is normal and right to care for those we _know_ best – know their cultures and ways – as we can relate to them more deeply and effectively. And when there are a people who are particularly despised, I will go out of my way to befriend them, stand in solidarity with and protect them from their adversaries. There are minority ethnic groups who are hated, and I will stand with them, even against those of my own ethnicity if need be. Please, don’t glibly condemn me, when things are far more nuanced than you have owned, and when I have done no wrong. In principle we can rightly say we love all men, but in practice we love those we know and are in contact with.

I have a heart for the Jews, my people after the flesh, to preach to them the riches in their Messiah, and the wonders of the temple of living stones He is building, for they have been led by false teachers the last 2,000 years, and are being decimated as a people – my own family members among them! So I will love the people the Lord puts on my heart to minister to. Here where I am, in the Middle East – Cyprus – there are no counterculture folks and very few Jews, so I care for those the Lord brings my way, from all different nationalities – for a few years being a teaching elder of an Arabic-speaking congregation.

Brad, I know all about the dark side of the 60s counterculture, and I condemn that which is worthy to be condemned. It is a truth, I believe, that to _hate_ a peoples – and the counterculture types are a people-group – _this_ is a sin. To project onto me, and those of my Woodstock generation, the attributes of your brother – his failings, irresponsibility, etc. – is unwarranted and prejudicial. It is a real wrong to assign characteristics to me and to others because of one really bad apple. Okay, we in my generation were _all_ “really bad apples” – even the “best” of us – seeing as we were all of the depraved race of Adam. But we were no worse than you, or other segments of the population. We were just different in our wickedness and sin. Please, bigotry – even toward the despised Woodstock generation – _this_ is sin, for it would withhold the grace of God to His elect yet uncalled in that people. And there are some. Even now I intercede for a dear old friend about to die and go into an eternity of unspeakable horror, asking the Savior to reveal His glory, truth, and saving love to this man’s heart. And there are others there I love.

We can disagree about the exegesis I posit, but to make this a go-for-the-jugular event is not godly.

The moral and intellectual superiority you feel toward your brother – for the pain and suffering he has caused (and you probably haven’t told the half of it) – it seems you would talk to me as if I were him, with scathing contempt. Truth be told, however, you are not morally or intellectually superior to him, for apart from the grace of God you are equally as much of a wretch, only a more responsible one. “God, I thank You that I am not as other men are, acidheads, Woodstockers, or even as this counterculture creep” (with apologies to Luke 18:11).

Though you have sought to paint me in a bad light, you don’t know the half of how wretched a character I am, but the Lord knows. And I go to Him with this horrid heart of mine seeking mercy, and grace to help in time of need, and for reasons I know not, He receives me, loves me, cleanses me, and transforms me into a beloved son, slowly being fitted for Heaven.

Please brother, I seek no war with you. I seek peace with you over “being right” in an exegetical issue. If we are at peace, we could even agree to disagree agreeably.


----------



## Elizabeth

""Bitterness doesn’t care to understand other people and their lives, it wants to crush them, to stand on their necks. In Christ we don’t treat even our enemies this way.""

Amen and amen. What a wonderful post, and testimony, to read on the Lord's Day!


----------



## seajayrice

Elizabeth said:


> ""Bitterness doesn’t care to understand other people and their lives, it wants to crush them, to stand on their necks. In Christ we don’t treat even our enemies this way.""
> 
> Amen and amen. What a wonderful post, and testimony, to read on the Lord's Day!


 
Amen and amen.


----------



## Mushroom

Jerusalem Blade said:


> To project onto me – and the counterculture generation I was of – the attributes, irresponsibility and style of life of your brother is an invalid generalization.


Steve, I was not projecting anything onto you, I was simply explaining the basis for my point of view concerning the much-ballyhooed sixties generation - that it is much less than it was cracked up to be - because _you asked_. It may surprise you to learn that I am not bitter about my brother - I love him and pray for his conversion - but I am a realist. He would be very happy if I were to join his victim-hood bandwagon and blame his actions on drugs, or licentiousness, or magnets for that matter . Sin was the cause of his failings, nothing besides. I have caused great pain and suffering myself by my own sin, so I take no stand of superiority, moral or otherwise, but the fact that I am a sinner does not mean I should not call sin what it is.

My words should have been less hard and more seasoned with grace, and I apologize for that. I do not have disdain for you, brother, but I confess that I do have disdain for the romanticization of any particular group of sinners above others. I spoke out against that, and in turn offended you, and I should have been more conscious of your feelings. I'm sorry.

Steve, there is no need for you to "stand in solidarity with and protect them from their adversaries" the sixties generation against my attacking them. As inspiring as that may sound, it is a pointless pursuit - because I am not their adversary. I simply acknowledge the truth about them, which is true of every movement of sinful man, that they were sinners scurrying about seeking for cloaks for their sin. Ennobling those pursuits is an error. 

I was one of those myself. By God's grace I was able to make a clean break philosophically with the excuses for sin that I held so strongly to before conversion - I say philosophically because even though I understood the wickedness of those mindsets, they were embedded very deeply in my thought processes, and manifested themselves in far too many ways, as they still do. I thank God through the Lord Jesus that He has delivered me from this body of death.

I find it disconcerting that you still view your sixties compatriots as-


Jerusalem Blade said:


> seekers and thinkers trying to understand life, and the possibility of salvation.


Brother, the only thing an unregenerate man seeks is darkness, because they despise the light, and they never seek salvation until the Lord has mercy upon them and grants them new life. I know you are aware of that.

At any rate, you can relax, Steve, I am not at war with you. I meant only to point out that your experience with pot was not shared by everyone who has ever used it, and that I believe you are projecting your own sinful occultism onto a substance and everyone who has ever used it. My opinion is that is error, and I believe your 'exegesis' is actually eisegesis motivated by a narrative that romanticizes the sixties and your particular experience. Please forgive the offensiveness I interjected into that.

Again, you used it for sinful purposes, the cancer patient does not when used where legal for that purpose.


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben, regarding the “weight on the chest” when awaking, I have no clue to what this might be. There are all sorts of paranormal phenomena that are in human experience, and these are not my concern here, as they are not relevant to the matter at hand. Your surmisings about the “weight” may well be right.



I bring it up because it is another instance of people interpreting an unusual experience as due to demonic activity.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> You said, “I haven't seen any evidence to substantiate that we can be chemically exposed to or protected from demons.” Some points of clarification: Thorazine doesn’t “counter occult substances”, it merely shuts down parts of the brain so that perception and affect are muted. Its action is physiological although it does obviously affect the soul.


But it returns one from a state of heightened susceptibility to demonic influence, correct? 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Nor would I call hallucinogens “occult substances”; they are chemicals which have a certain action on the brain and nervous system. I think I see what your view is: you simply do not believe they have the effect that is claimed for them.


The language of "occult substance" was drawn from your posts on the previous thread. Did I misunderstand? I thought you were explicitly including marijuana in that category.
I believe that drugs can cause intense experiences; no doubt demons can take advantage of those experiences for deceit; but that doesn't mean that the experience involved psychic contact with demons. What I am having trouble grasping is the claim that certain drugs enable you to have social interactions in a spiritual dimension.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Let me ask you this then: what do you think the pharmakeia in Scripture refers to? Most of the translators render the word “sorcery” or “sorceries”, and its cognate, pharmakos, “sorcerer”. What do you think Paul in Galatians 5:20 or John in Revelation 9:21, 18:23, and 21:8 were talking about? Do you think there is any such thing as sorcery, that is, the use of drugs in the magic arts, and that it is an aid to some in having intercourse with the demonic world? Or do you think this is all “superstition”? If so, what is the Scripture talking about in these instances?


Prohibiting necromancy doesn't mean that the dead can, in fact, be contacted. A failed attempt at occult activity is just as sinful as a successful attempt. But I'm not arguing for a position. I'm seeking to understand your view and what it entails.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is telling when you say, “I have no conscious acquaintance with hallucinogens”. You really are venturing an opinion in an area where you have no experience. Not that having no experience is a bad thing! Multitudes that have had it have perished and are destroyed. An entire world has been profoundly affected by it (Rev 18:23), even if unknowingly.


But any experience has to be understood: I am asking why the demonic interpretation of drug experience is to be preferred, and how this view avoids superstition.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I would agree with you that one of the devil’s primary weapons is deception. He uses it to incite people – and peoples – to murder, and also to hate Christians. He used the drugs in question to deceive on a vast scale (Rev 18:23). You just don’t believe chemicals can have the effect pointed to by the term pharmakeia.


It might be more accurate to say that I'm not convinced that the term points to a particular effect. And I think it possible that part of the deception lies in attributing spiritual significance to the experiences of altered consciousness.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Brad,

Thanks for toning it down a little – I appreciate that. There are a lot of streams feeding into this discussion, and I want to try to isolate some and look at them.

One is the seeking to define the meaning of _pharmakeia_ in relation to the sixties counterculture, that is, to exegete the word by our understanding of drug usage in this time period. I don’t think this is valid. It had a set meaning way before our time.

I don’t believe you have actually given an exegesis of the word, you’ve just been denying mine. What you think of the 60s etc. and their drugs affects your understanding of the word. Because you don’t see the hallucinogens of that time as agents _invariably_ precipitating an enhanced consciousness in a realm normal awareness does not enter, you say their classification depends on the intent of the user and not the drugs themselves, thus denying their use per se is “sorcery” and that the word _pharmakeia_ doesn’t necessarily reflect on the drugs but instead the design of those who take them.

Perhaps you would extend this definition to _pharmakeia_ throughout the ages, including this activity in ancient Chaldean Babylon, where the LXX uses the same Greek word to translate “sorceries”, as in Isaiah 47:9 and 12, and you seem to take this stance on the view that _you_ took hallucinogens and didn’t practice overt occult activities – the forbidden _pharmakeia_ – and therefore the word pertains not to the drugs but the intent and activities. For sure in the 1960s and most likely in ancient Babylon.

Philip Pugh (post #45) thinks it most likely “potioneering”, i.e., the use of “substances where humors of the body were supposedly manipulated to produce effects like love or which would give the user abilities”, which seems to me a somewhat arcane view not much in vogue among commentators of either the OT or NT. Philip, I have given lexical evidence concerning the topic in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/we-babylon-61763/. You may not agree with my surmisings re Babylon, but there are a lot of lexical references.

You, Brad, seem loath to admit that the state of mind you were in using marijuana was _pharmakeia_, because you were not consciously intending that kind of activity, and were not aware participating in it. My assertion is that just because you were not conscious of it didn’t exempt you from the classification. Okay, point of difference.

You say I am guilty of eisegesis because I attribute the quality of my former drug use to reflect on the meaning of _pharmakeia_, while in fact it was the reverse: lexical evidences presented to me decades ago cast light on my activities, and _not_ the activities casting light on – eisegeting – the lexical meaning.

Claiming to be “victimized” by drugs, you say? Blaming them for our entrance into the occult world instead of taking responsibility for our sin? First of all, we unregenerate who did such things were already condemned (John 3:18) and dead in our sins, alienated from God and consigned to Hell. There’s not much difference between a responsible non-drug-using sinner, and all other kinds of sinners, druggies included. All these things you say about victims, guilt, evading guilt, etc are really pointless given our lost estate.

Does intent make the drug work a certain way? Change its effect on the human body and psyche? Now in your saying that when the intent is occultic, and the experience of this is realized, then you admit the chemicals have the property which afford this action. Are those properties negated if the intent is otherwise? What kind of chemical is this whose properties and effects change with intent? No other pharmaceutical has this characteristic.

People smoke or ingest marijuana to attain a psychological or psychic “high” – an elevated and enhanced state of consciousness – but some, it seems, are bitterly resentful if you call this “high” as much a _pharmakeia_ activity as more spiritual awareness. It is to deny that _pharmakeia_ can involve enhanced physical sensation and pleasure through this psychic “high” – to the exclusion of overt occultism – as well as said occult activity.

To use sorcery to voluptuously indulge in sensory pleasure is as much one of its activities as the seeking of psychic / spiritual experience.

The THC’s intrinsic chemical properties do not vary with the motives of the user. You deceive yourself maintaining otherwise.

Those reading this thread, including pastors and elders who are given to rule the church according to the word of God, may determine for themselves what is sound exegesis of Biblical terminology and what is not. It is an important matter, for it will be a burning issue _for the church_ in the days – years – to come. About medical marijuana, if you haven’t already done so, check out the links on it in the OP, especially, ‘The Medical “Benefits” of Smoking Marijuana (Cannabis): a Review of the Current Scientific Literature’.

Brad, you take great liberties in presuming to describe who I am and how I think! You seem to cling to the idea that I have certain views of the sixties generation, and you won’t take me at my word when I say to the contrary, or at least give it significant nuance. I don’t like a cloud of misinformation to hover about me so that it cannot be seen who I am and how I see. Of course I can’t ward off or fight every false thing said with regard to me, but here at PB, which is a small world, and where I mostly write at this point, I can give it a shot.

I really don’t romanticize the Woodstock generation. You say I do fairly often. Perhaps because I don’t denigrate them _above_ other unregenerate cultures or subcultures, or because I don’t deny there was any good – or anything to love – _at all_ in the people or the culture, you say I “romanticize” them?

_Indeed_ that generation was, as you say, “much less than it was cracked up to be”! Instead of a path to Illumination and world peace (ever see the Beatles’ _Yellow Submarine_?), it opened the floodgates of spiritual deception – darkness in the guise of light – and was a major demonic campaign of the latter-day assault on humankind, and in particular the war on the saints. All these things are, of course, by the decree of Him who opens the seven seals of the apocalypse (Rev 5).

Romanticize? I’m writing a book, Brad, in the genre “visionary adventure, nonfiction”, about a novice warrior-priest who fell from his Master’s presence – through a hidden snare – into the howling archetypal heartlands of humanity, the psychedelic wastelands, a wilderness of hearts, and sought for the way back, a long and terrible odyssey. A lot of this story takes place in the context of the sixties generation, and in Woodstock. The protagonist is a representative of this generation, one of its poet-seers. It’s in great part a horror story; not so much the horror of creatures and dangers outside oneself, but the horror of what dark and evil identities may materialize within the heart, what monstrosities the human soul may be transformed into (worse than Kafka’s nightmare). It’s a vision of human depravity – the ontologic actuality of it – in a soul apart from the life of God. Nor is this merely a picture of personal madness, but the very human condition. In the setting of the Woodstock generation, and in the person of its poet, is seen the horror that is usually not witnessed till one dies and finds oneself in Hell among depraved fallen angels and eternally raging reprobate humans. The horror is the self-realization and actualization of a spiritual offspring of Satan (John 8:44). The “T” in TULIP plumbed.

So you err in your take on my views. The story, thankfully, doesn’t end in the abyss of the heartlands, but a Savior appears and snatches the wretched, deceived disciple out of the realm of horror and into Himself just as he is about to lose his physical body and go into eternity. For He keeps His word, He who said, “My sheep . . . shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand” (Jn 10:27, 28). The mighty Shepherd of His sheep is honored and sung in this tale of horror and joy.

The story takes place in New York City, and in the village of Woodstock, and it romanticizes nothing, but speaks truly (this poet once said, “Better terrible truth than none at all, or the usual hype and jive”). It really is an adventure, and there are many characters, and there is love, and redemption, and the story is not over, but still being lived, but toward the end, the novice now mature, shows a vision – through the vision afforded in Scripture – of the end of this age, and things that come to pass.

Although written by a poet, the book is prose, with poems embedded in it, as a gold knife hilt studded with jewels.

-------

Ruben,

The Thorazine I mentioned doesn’t exactly “return one from a state of heightened susceptibility to demonic influence”, rather – to be precise – it shuts down awareness, acting on the brain so that perception and affect are muted. This returns one from a state of heightened consciousness to a very minimal consciousness. One may still be susceptible to demonic influence, but awareness of it is gone. Perhaps you are one of those who say that Christians are forever delivered from demonic influence; but I think Scripture shows that if we give them ground through sin they will take it.

The closest usage of the term you mention – occult substance – was in this exchange:

A question was put to me: “Are you suggesting pot has supernatural properties when smoked?” And I answered, “As a sorcerous substance it has the effect of bringing a person’s consciousness into the spiritual realm, completely apart from the agency of the Spirit of Christ. It is an effect unique to this class of drugs. The psychopharmacological effect pertains to the supernatural. The differences between pot and LSD or mescaline are a matter of _degree_ and not of _kind_.”

I don’t know that Scripture anywhere explicitly states sorcerous drugs “involve psychic contact with demons” or “enable you to have social interactions in a spiritual dimension”. What is certain is that the _pharmakeia_ class of drugs are prohibited in both the Old and New Testaments, those who practice _pharmakeia_ are in the OT liable to the death sentence, and in the NT expulsion from the church, that – according to the lexical definition – _pharmakeia_ involves the use of drugs for the practice of the magic arts, and that it is used in many cultures specifically for the purpose of making “psychic contact with demons” and “social interactions [with them] in a spiritual dimension”.

Now you may say that the Hindus who smoke marijuana and its derivative hashish, and the Native Americans who take peyote and mescal buttons, in order to contact their “deities” and spirit guides are not really doing that, but are only deceived into thinking they are. And that the voodoo practitioners and Satanists who use drugs to enable them to use demonic agency to cast spells, etc are likewise deceived into only thinking they are but not really doing these things. You have the freedom to take that position, but having studied these matters I believe they are actually conscious channelers and agents of these entities.

In the days of our Lord when He walked on the earth it certainly was a fairly common phenomena to see people actually possessed by demons; these latter strongly desire to do this to humans, and I would think they no less today desire to deeply infiltrate the beings of humans, and the drugs of the magic arts afford a great opportunity to do so. One aim of these foul spirits – one might say _primary_ aim – is, as you say, deception. Not only in bogus spirit contacts (though no doubt there are such), but in genuine ones, masquerading as angels of light.

Perhaps all this supernatural stuff is unsavory to you, and you’d rather think it’s but superstition. This will put you at a disadvantage though, for you will discount testimonies as but deception when they may be actual.

One of the approaches the sorcerer teachers – such as Harvard professor Tim Leary – was to tell us that these drugs, LSD, mescaline, marijuana, were sacraments of the ancient and true religion whereby man could experience communion with God. And there were many who experienced spiritual glory and illumination – so they thought – but it was only the effects produced by satan’s “angels of light”. These devils had intimate contact with multitudes through the “sacraments” of Hell, in many varieties of ways. I don’t know if you’ve ever studied this and related phenomena, but these days there is a vast field of literature by all sorts of writers from various disciplines and points of view. Back in the early sixties there was very little; Aldous Huxley’s _The Doors of Perception_ and _Heaven and Hell_, and Dr. Robert DeRopp’s _Drugs and the Mind_. 

We had no clue of it then, but these drugs introduced us to a real and powerful counterfeit of the Holy Spirit.

There are yogis practicing today – they strongly eschew drugs – who by yogic disciplines develop supernatural powers, which they claim are divine, and some of them have numerous contacts with spirit entities, which they claim are ascended Masters giving them wisdom, light, etc. Their “powers” are the operation of demons for the purpose of deception. These same entities operate through humans in the West as spirit guides, and there are numerous books in the stores by these channelers.

And now, coming into the churches through the Contemplative Prayer movement and Spiritual Formation ministries, are teachings about prayer and communion with God and Christ that hark back to the Roman Catholic mystics, such as Teresa of Avila (one book on this is _Castles in the Sand_, by Carolyn A. Greene, and published by Lighthouse Trails). These movements are much in sync with the New Age / New Spirituality, as they have a “Jesus” appearing to those meditating in “contemplative prayer” and talking to them and being their guide. This stuff is being taught in Christian schools.

So, to be skeptical about the demonic infiltrating human consciousness in sundry areas and by sundry means – _pharmakeia_ included – will render one less than effective in ministering to souls and inoculating the people of God to be ware of the deceptions and dangers of him who prowls as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, and whom we are to resist steadfast in the faith (1 Pet 5:8, 9).

A really strange thing about our times is the immensely widespread use of _pharmakeia_-class drugs throughout the world. It was never like this in earlier ages, but restricted only to a very few who operated in the shadows. Now it is everywhere, part of the cultures of the world, and on the way to being made “legal”, that is, part of the legitimate social order. This is a significant new development. I think Scripture addresses it, especially in Revelation.

I really don’t know, Ruben, that I can convince you if you don’t see my view. Ask the Lord what the truth of the matter is.


----------



## TimV

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perhaps you would extend this definition to pharmakeia throughout the ages, including this activity in ancient Chaldean Babylon, where the LXX uses the same Greek word to translate “sorceries”, as in Isaiah 47:9 and 12, and you seem to take this stance on the view that you took hallucinogens and didn’t practice overt occult activities – the forbidden pharmakeia – and therefore the word pertains not to the drugs but the intent and activities.



I think what you're missing is that drugs are just a part of pharmakeia. Poison Men, Shangomas etc.. use plants of course just like Western doctors uses many of the same plants but in witchcraft the plants are always used as a part of a whole ritual which, depending on the culture involves chanting, prayers, incense, fire from a lighter or stick passed in front of the patient, blowing on the patient, animal sacrifice etc...

So, chanting, fire, incense etc...are just as much a part of the ritual as the plants, and the plants, for the most part, aren't hallucinogenic. In the combined ten years I spent in PNG and SA I never saw or heard of a plant being used as an hallucinogenic except for recreation. As I've said before, I know it's different in South America. But the point should be obvious. Your mistake is taking a few examples and assuming all are the same, and it's just flat false. As I've said earlier in the thread, I sat through a Shangoma's ritual to keep an eye on my worker, but the plants were used to make him empty the contents of his bowls and bladder, not in any other capacity, but it was witchcraft, where as the hundreds of millions of people who have used opium and it's derivatives at the hands of doctors weren't practicing witchcraft.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> People smoke or ingest marijuana to attain a psychological or psychic “high” – an elevated and enhanced state of consciousness – but some, it seems, are bitterly resentful if you call this “high” as much a pharmakeia



I threw some Salvia divinorum (legal for those over 18 here in CA) on a fire just to see what it would do. It had a really calming effect; kind of like the opposite of caffeine but totally unlike alcohol. I noticed the color blue on a flower was really prettier than I'd ever thought. So, while I've never done pot or mescaline etc... I've had enough friends who have who've described similar things. Just because you focus on a color, a smell, something tastes better etc...doesn't mean you're conscience is elevated. It's just that drugs have different effects. That's all. Getting more energy in the morning from caffeine isn't spiritual. It's getting more energy in the morning, as mundane as that may sound.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> There are yogis practicing today – they strongly eschew drugs – who by yogic disciplines develop supernatural powers



No, there are not. The Indian government just did a scientific study of one for the army. Just some dude who had practice fasting. Turned out he lost weight under the strict controls the army had in place. This was in the news just a few months ago. So far, there's not been a single verified example of what you're claiming. So at least that statement is an example of you reading something and assuming it's true because it supports your theory rather than doing the proper thing and trying to disprove your theory to see if it stands up.


----------



## Phil D.

Steve, I may not agree with every specific thing you have said in this thread, but I truly appreciate and wholeheartedly agree with the general thrust of what you are getting at. I think God's people would be well-served to heed your thoughtful counsel in these troubling matters. Thank you for speaking out.


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben,
> 
> The Thorazine I mentioned doesn’t exactly “return one from a state of heightened susceptibility to demonic influence”, rather – to be precise – it shuts down awareness, acting on the brain so that perception and affect are muted. This returns one from a state of heightened consciousness to a very minimal consciousness. One may still be susceptible to demonic influence, but awareness of it is gone. Perhaps you are one of those who say that Christians are forever delivered from demonic influence; but I think Scripture shows that if we give them ground through sin they will take it.
> 
> The closest usage of the term you mention – occult substance – was in this exchange:
> 
> A question was put to me: “Are you suggesting pot has supernatural properties when smoked?” And I answered, “As a sorcerous substance it has the effect of bringing a person’s consciousness into the spiritual realm, completely apart from the agency of the Spirit of Christ. It is an effect unique to this class of drugs. The psychopharmacological effect pertains to the supernatural. The differences between pot and LSD or mescaline are a matter of _degree_ and not of _kind_.”



Mr. Rafalsky, thank you for clarifying. It seems your view is somewhat more nuanced than was at first apparent to me. If I am not mistaken, the core of your contention is twofold: that certain drugs can or do have an influence on the mind that makes us more susceptible to demonic influence in a variety of ways; and that Scripture prohibits the use of such drugs in condeming sorcery (_pharmakeia_). Is that accurate?
If so, how do we know which drugs or plants fall into that category? Is it merely that those claiming to be sorcerers have used them? Is it the effect they have on most people? If the prohibitions of _pharmakeia_ are prohibitions of substances then there must be some guidance in determining which those are. And I think this is the core point where your views are not convincing everyone, because it seems at least equally plausible that instead of a prohibition of certain undefined substances, what is being forbidden is an activity which often involved the use of drugs for a certain end. If we define the prohibition of sorcery as putting certain chemicals beyond the pale of Christian use, on what grounds do we condemn burning copies of your credit card bills with certain select herbs as a means (along with making punctual payments, according to a manual for urban witches!) of getting out of debt? It makes more sense to me that the prohibition of sorcery rules out all occult practices, whether real or pretended, efficacious or vain shows. But if it is taken in that way, then it cannot be taken as issuing a blanket prohibition on certain substances, regardless of the context or intent or manner of their use. If I'm not mistaken, I think that is what Brad and Tim have also been arguing for.

I understand that the difference here could have quite serious ramifications for one's view of spiritual warfare and the agencies of demonic deception: that's precisely why I have devoted so much time to the discussion. More light on the subject would be very gratifying. But I wonder if it is not similar to idolatry. Paul writes that an idol is nothing in the world, and at the same time recognizes demonic activity behind the idolatry. It is possible to recognize demonic activity and deception behind occult activity, without attributing any power to it beyond that of deceit.

I think that addresses the substance of the difference between us, but please do let me know if there is something I passed over.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I don’t know that Scripture anywhere explicitly states sorcerous drugs “involve psychic contact with demons” or “enable you to have social interactions in a spiritual dimension”. What is certain is that the _pharmakeia_ class of drugs are prohibited in both the Old and New Testaments, those who practice _pharmakeia_ are in the OT liable to the death sentence, and in the NT expulsion from the church, that – according to the lexical definition – _pharmakeia_ involves the use of drugs for the practice of the magic arts, and that it is used in many cultures specifically for the purpose of making “psychic contact with demons” and “social interactions [with them] in a spiritual dimension”.
> 
> Now you may say that the Hindus who smoke marijuana and its derivative hashish, and the Native Americans who take peyote and mescal buttons, in order to contact their “deities” and spirit guides are not really doing that, but are only deceived into thinking they are. And that the voodoo practitioners and Satanists who use drugs to enable them to use demonic agency to cast spells, etc are likewise deceived into only thinking they are but not really doing these things. You have the freedom to take that position, but having studied these matters I believe they are actually conscious channelers and agents of these entities.
> 
> In the days of our Lord when He walked on the earth it certainly was a fairly common phenomena to see people actually possessed by demons; these latter strongly desire to do this to humans, and I would think they no less today desire to deeply infiltrate the beings of humans, and the drugs of the magic arts afford a great opportunity to do so. One aim of these foul spirits – one might say _primary_ aim – is, as you say, deception. Not only in bogus spirit contacts (though no doubt there are such), but in genuine ones, masquerading as angels of light.
> 
> Perhaps all this supernatural stuff is unsavory to you, and you’d rather think it’s but superstition. This will put you at a disadvantage though, for you will discount testimonies as but deception when they may be actual.
> 
> One of the approaches the sorcerer teachers – such as Harvard professor Tim Leary – was to tell us that these drugs, LSD, mescaline, marijuana, were sacraments of the ancient and true religion whereby man could experience communion with God. And there were many who experienced spiritual glory and illumination – so they thought – but it was only the effects produced by satan’s “angels of light”. These devils had intimate contact with multitudes through the “sacraments” of Hell, in many varieties of ways. I don’t know if you’ve ever studied this and related phenomena, but these days there is a vast field of literature by all sorts of writers from various disciplines and points of view. Back in the early sixties there was very little; Aldous Huxley’s _The Doors of Perception_ and _Heaven and Hell_, and Dr. Robert DeRopp’s _Drugs and the Mind_.
> 
> We had no clue of it then, but these drugs introduced us to a real and powerful counterfeit of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> There are yogis practicing today – they strongly eschew drugs – who by yogic disciplines develop supernatural powers, which they claim are divine, and some of them have numerous contacts with spirit entities, which they claim are ascended Masters giving them wisdom, light, etc. Their “powers” are the operation of demons for the purpose of deception. These same entities operate through humans in the West as spirit guides, and there are numerous books in the stores by these channelers.
> 
> And now, coming into the churches through the Contemplative Prayer movement and Spiritual Formation ministries, are teachings about prayer and communion with God and Christ that hark back to the Roman Catholic mystics, such as Teresa of Avila (one book on this is _Castles in the Sand_, by Carolyn A. Greene, and published by Lighthouse Trails). These movements are much in sync with the New Age / New Spirituality, as they have a “Jesus” appearing to those meditating in “contemplative prayer” and talking to them and being their guide. This stuff is being taught in Christian schools.
> 
> So, to be skeptical about the demonic infiltrating human consciousness in sundry areas and by sundry means – _pharmakeia_ included – will render one less than effective in ministering to souls and inoculating the people of God to be ware of the deceptions and dangers of him who prowls as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, and whom we are to resist steadfast in the faith (1 Pet 5:8, 9).
> 
> A really strange thing about our times is the immensely widespread use of _pharmakeia_-class drugs throughout the world. It was never like this in earlier ages, but restricted only to a very few who operated in the shadows. Now it is everywhere, part of the cultures of the world, and on the way to being made “legal”, that is, part of the legitimate social order. This is a significant new development. I think Scripture addresses it, especially in Revelation.
> 
> I really don’t know, Ruben, that I can convince you if you don’t see my view. Ask the Lord what the truth of the matter is.


----------



## Mushroom

Steve, brother, we are different breeds. I must admit that my own narrative is not remotely as artful and poetic as yours, so we will likely always talk past each other as though we were from different planets, which is probably the reason why I discount the bulk of what you have to say. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, at least not as derogatory as it may sound. Folks that I know that say the things you do I mostly consider hippies who never dropped the facade of the 'peace generation' - and Christians who talk that way I generally think need to repent and get their feet back on the ground. But I digress. I have been wrong enough in the past to realize that I may be very wrong in this as well. It may surprise you to find that some of those are very close friends of mine. I realize I frustrate them by my skepticism when they start talking about 'vibes' and seeing 'little people', but they know that all the Whole-Earth-Catalogue-Be-Here-Now talk in the world will have no effect, so we get along pretty well. They don't seem to be very thin-skinned.

I think Ruben and Tim have made the points that I agree with far better than I can, so I will bow out of this conversation. My attitude towards what I perhaps erroneously perceive as your myopic endearment of that particular movement of men will color everything I say, and my view of what you say. I am an equal opportunity bigot, however. If one's identity was not hippie-christian, but Xgen-christian, or hindu-christian, or Marxist-christian, or gangster-christian, or any other hyphenation, I would be equally dismissive. We are new creations, the old has passed away; behold, the new has come. My intent is to leave all the Lost Planet Airman stuff in the past.

May the Lord bless you, brother, and if it needs be you, me, or both, may He grant us deliverance from error in this.

Happy Trails


----------



## seajayrice

Steve, am I hallucinating or did your shirt just change colors


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I personally disagree with Tim. Brad, and Ruben. I have a lot of experience here. P.S. Thorazine is another discussion. It was created to counter. I agree with a lot of Steve. Drugs like Chlorpromazine (ie.Thorazine) didn't really counter the total effects but it does calm them down. At least to the point where they aren't........... The total results of their sin. I feel pain every day. I take aspirin or tylenol. My medical history is not in question here. But I know that marijuana and other things like it totally leave the mind unsober and left in a separate world. 



> (2Co 4:4) In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.



Just because it isn't labelled occultic in our language, does it make it any less? It is occultic. *It always influences*. And that is what is missing in this conversation. It does have some kind of influence. You might say occultic, I say demonic.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

As a side note. I have a very interesting investment in this thread...... I have to deal with this a lot more than most of you. I find some responding too intellectually and not spiritually. I find some not responding to the words of scripture and responding supposedly scientifically. I will stick with the Bible. I think Steve does also. It has nothing to do with our Generations or Woodstock. BTW, I wish I could have been at Woodstock. LOL


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me ask you guys another thing. Sorry, I have been following this. Why wouldn't you smoke POT? I can give you a lot reasons why I wouldn't. But then again..... I have been on both sides. Can I also tell you not to stick your hand in a fire even though it is pretty? I still think it leads to Occultic and demonic practices. Do as thou wilt or shalt.


----------



## py3ak

Here's the problem Randy. The argument is made based on experiences that certain drugs bring you into contact with the occult. But it hasn't been explained how we know that some sort of heightened occult contact is the right interpretation of those drug-induced experiences. 
The argument is made based on a word-study that Scripture prohibits certain drugs; but unless Scripture prohibits all drugs you have the difficulty of identifying _which_ drugs are in view. Furthermore, the evidence presented so far is not convincing that it is substances rather than activities that are proscribed. And if it is substances, on what basis do we prohibit activities like drawing pentagrams in chicken blood? To me that doesn't at all seem like sticking to Scripture. 
And yet further, if this puts people to looking for demons in nutmeg, it might distract them from the non-creepy but real demonic activity in institutionalized injustice, unrighteous corporate cultures, or the durable pleasures of egotism. In other words, my concern is not rationalistic: I am not denying the reality or pervasiveness of demonic activity: I'm concerned that these magical aspects are but decoys from the real work of deceiving men's minds and hardening their consciences, or perhaps also lures to bring us into superstition. If the devil wears Armani, we might far more often find him at a corporate retreat than in a witches' coven. Or, more in keeping with how this discussion started, there could well be as much or more demonic activity behind a trend towards statism as in a chemical high.
I wouldn't smoke pot because deliberately inhaling smoke of any variety is not the way I choose to use my delicate sinuses; because of the likelihood of a sort of inebriation; because it's illegal; because I don't have a known medical need for its particular properties. Yerba Mate, on the other hand, and my multivitamin I find it difficult to do without.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That is why I brought up influence Josh. It is a factor here. 

BTW, My heart has been made merry by alcohol. I can't say that about mary jane. 

I still think the tie Steve made is reputable by scripture. And this is something I am having a hard time with in this discussion. I don't think anyone is really dealing with the foundational substance of scripture. Yes, it is my opinion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry Ruben, We cross posted. I still see you guys are going to science of the mind instead of Scripture. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## py3ak

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sorry Ruben, We cross posted. I still see you guys are going to science of the mind instead of Scripture. Just my humble opinion.


 
Randy, if you just _say_ this and don't try to show us how or where, I don't think that's altogether fair. It's easy to say, "This is how I see things" but if you won't give reasons what am I supposed to do with that datum, or how am I supposed to evaluate it? I see things differently! We're at a dead end until you give me something to work with.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

py3ak said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ruben, We cross posted. I still see you guys are going to science of the mind instead of Scripture. Just my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, if you just _say_ this and don't try to show us how or where, I don't think that's altogether fair. It's easy to say, "This is how I see things" but if you won't give reasons what am I supposed to do with that datum, or how am I supposed to evaluate it? I see things differently! We're at a dead end until you give me something to work with.
Click to expand...

 I agree Ruben. Sorry. 

I see things differently as one who has stuck his hand in the fire. You admit you haven't. I guess we are at a dead end. I still believe Steve supported his premise in word studies of scripture and History. You have done neither. All you have done is draw out questions. It kind of sounds agnostic to me. Maybe I am out there. But my hand has been in the fire also. I have the scars. I have proof. Look at my Scars. I am skceptical of Rationalist and those who are existentialistic also. But there is much more that I believe Steve has laid out that you are denying by mere words. There is a word. It means something. It has had roots. You seem to deny this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry, But maybe I need to start referring back to the original post and quotes from sources in that post. ISBE.


----------



## py3ak

PuritanCovenanter said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ruben, We cross posted. I still see you guys are going to science of the mind instead of Scripture. Just my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, if you just _say_ this and don't try to show us how or where, I don't think that's altogether fair. It's easy to say, "This is how I see things" but if you won't give reasons what am I supposed to do with that datum, or how am I supposed to evaluate it? I see things differently! We're at a dead end until you give me something to work with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree Ruben. Sorry.
> 
> I see things differently as one who has stuck his hand in the fire. You admit you haven't. I guess we are at a dead end. I still believe Steve supported his premise in word studies of scripture and History. You have done neither. All you have done is draw out questions. It kind of sounds agnostic to me. Maybe I am out there. But my hand has been in the fire also. I have the scars. I have proof. Look at my Scars. I am skceptical of Rationalist and those who are existentialistic also. But there is much more that I believe Steve has laid out that you are denying by mere words. There is a word. It means something. It has had roots. You seem to deny this.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks, Randy.

I have some difficulty with the suggestion that experience is necessary in order to be persuaded by Mr. Rafalsky's case. For one thing, we don't require that with regard to other matters: I don't need to have been a Buddhist to know that Buddhism is dangerously wrong. For another thing, it's not the fact of the experiences but the interpretation of them that is at issue. Finally, this question embraces far more than experience: it embraces a theology of the occult, which of course is to be drawn from Scripture, not from experience.

Second, of course I have raised questions: I'm not the one warning the church of a great danger! But how are we to prove all things and hold fast that which is good if we don't ask questions? Unless you assume that the intent is hypocritical, I don't believe you can move from "questioning" to "agnostic". But I understand if you want to see an opposing theory, and I will admit that I've more hinted at one than set it out. This is because I am explicitly in the position of seeking to understand a position that's been set forth at some length and with considerable vigor.

I'm not sure how you would arrive at the conclusion that I'm denying that the word means something, though. I have not fussed with the translation "sorcery" for _pharmakeia_ nor _sorcerer_ for _pharmakos_: I have no reason to call those things into question. Nor have I denied that sorcerers use drugs. I can accept the translation, and the historical association, without any difficulty. But that translation and that historical association, do not lead to the conclusion that (some) drugs are sorcerous substances. That is a leap in logic whose intermediate steps have still not been spelled out. For instance, rosemary has been used in certain magical rites: does that make rosemary a sorcerous substance? Does that mean that rosemary is excluded by the prohibtion of _pharmakeia_? Or is it only herbs or drugs with certain effects? My alternative theory is that what is prohibited is sorcery (which lies on the face of the text): so we are prohibited from putting rosemary to a sorcerous use; but that says absolutely nothing about the intrinsic properties of rosemary. In other words, by making the word about the properties or effects of substances, it is unduly restricted: it no longer prohibits inept or ineffective attempts at sorcery. But that puts the prohibition at odds with the rest of God's law, which prohibit not merely a successful murder, but the very desire to kill and the anger that leads to it. Again: Aldous Huxley says that by use of a strobe light you can get into a state similar to that reached by taking mescaline; does that mean that strobe lights are sorcerous? If you take Mr. Rafalsky's view of _pharmakeia_ I don't see how you could conclude that they are, because they aren't a pharmaceutical substance; but if mescaline makes you susceptible to demonic influence, and if a strobe light can put you into the same condition of susceptibility, how can you deny that a strobe light can be put to a sorcerous use? But if it isn't the sorcerous use, but merely the sorcerous substance, that is prohibited, you have no grounds to reprove someone for using a strobe light to enter a state of altered consciousness: even though it's the fact that it brings about a state of altered consciousness that appears to be the criterion for entering an herb or drug into the prohibited class of _pharmakeia_! 
Now if someone could condense that last paragraph into a fifteen word sentence, I think we'd have a clear statement of my position!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

As I said. I am not a rationalist nor am I existentialist. I am not a logistician either. I still think Steve's review is correct standing on my side. You can't present that. What is the theology of the occult. I find it hard to present the theology of Federal Vision. What is your definition of the Occult? Define it again. Please?


----------



## Mushroom

PuritanCovenanter said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ruben, We cross posted. I still see you guys are going to science of the mind instead of Scripture. Just my humble opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, if you just _say_ this and don't try to show us how or where, I don't think that's altogether fair. It's easy to say, "This is how I see things" but if you won't give reasons what am I supposed to do with that datum, or how am I supposed to evaluate it? I see things differently! We're at a dead end until you give me something to work with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree Ruben. Sorry.
> 
> I see things differently as one who has stuck his hand in the fire. You admit you haven't. I guess we are at a dead end. I still believe Steve supported his premise in word studies of scripture and History. You have done neither. All you have done is draw out questions. It kind of sounds agnostic to me. Maybe I am out there. But my hand has been in the fire also. I have the scars. I have proof. Look at my Scars. I am skceptical of Rationalist and those who are existentialistic also. But there is much more that I believe Steve has laid out that you are denying by mere words. There is a word. It means something. It has had roots. You seem to deny this.
Click to expand...

Randy, I have to step in to say that I have put my hand into that same fire, and come away with an entirely different view. I did drugs for a looong time. I used pot, cocaine, mescaline, mushrooms, far too much LSD, various opiates, PCP, crystal meth, hashish, hash oil, etc, etc, etc. 

I experienced many hallucinations under the influence of some of those. My view of them then, as now, was that they were products of my own mind due to the affects certain chemicals had on neurons in my brain that controlled the senses by exagerating or modifying them in ways that differed from my normal perceptions of the signals my senses sent to the brain. I noticed that I had control over those effects, and that they tended to exagerate ideas and thoughts, even phobias, that I already possessed. I also thought that weaker minds, and those of less stable psyches should avoid those drugs altogether, because I saw loopier folks freak, and more violent types rage. Maybe that was arrogance on my part, but I thought a man ought to learn his limitations and stay within them. Even then when I saw folks having occultic or demonic reactions to those drugs, I thought that it was due to the fact that they had a proclivity towards superstition, and I still do. And don't get me wrong, I now, and even then to some extent, understand that many (most?) of those drugs can be very deleterious both physically and psychologically, and are thus very dangerous. That is exactly what I teach my children.

I soon found that I disliked completely some, had no interest in others, and didn't want the side effects of still more, and within a couple of years had settled on pot as normally the only type of substance-induced 'heart-cheering' I enjoyed, and that in great moderation, even to the exclusion of that old demon alcohol, which I always thought made a man stupid and and was more damaging to the health. Over those years I learned how to partake of it responsibly and carefully, but finally was convicted of my flaunting of the magistrate's law, and ceased.

So here's my view - no holds barred - you and Steve are with pot like unto the guys who can't get near a beer because they have no ability to handle it properly. You didn't with pot (which I hold is one of few such substances that can be used properly- a purely subjective opinion), and had bad experiences that you are now attributing to the pot rather than your own frailties and proclivities, and to cement the prohibition on all are ascribing demonic attributes to the substance rather than your own intents. This has gone on for ages with alcohol as well, by well-meaning but deluded folks who had bad experiences with that drug. I ain't buyin' it, brother.

Steve's interpretation is influenced by that experience such that it is eisegesis. It is the act of sorcery that is prohibited, not the items that a sorcerer may have used in his false art. As has been pointed out, if that were the case then all drugs, feathers, magnets, bells, and chickens would be forbidden, which is silly. Yes, potioneering was seen by medeival minds as a sorcerer's activity, so the ancient Greek word for sorcerer worked into european languages to mean the mixing of chemicals to make compounds useful for various purposes, good or ill. If that meant that pharmaceuticals are all products of sorcery, you better lay off the Tylenol, and that is exactly where Steve's hermeneutic would carry him if he were to be consistent rather than subjective in his classifications.

I hold that it is sin for a Christian to partake of pot in any land where the law prohibits it. Where it is legal, it is sin to partake in a fashion that causes one to lose sobriety. It is also likely unwise to partake in any case due to the deleterious affects on one's health that all smoking imparts. But not because the demons might jump out at you.

'Nuff said and signing off.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

A few words before I hit the sack.

CJ, don’t worry, you’re okay – I did change my shirt!

Brad, thanks for your gracious remarks (save for the “eisegesis” saying)! 

Phil, thanks for your supportive comments!

Josh and Ruben, you have points well-taken, in that while _pharmakeia_ is expressly prohibited under the severest of sanctions, it is not specified in Scripture exactly what drugs are included in that category.

In the OT and NT that drugs of a certain class were prohibited – those used in those settings and times for magic arts and sorcerous activities – is clear. But what are those drugs, and particularly with regard to our times? It was the job of the priests then to “put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean” (Lev 10:10), and “between the holy and profane” (Ezek 22:26).

In the NT era Paul tells us that we are called to have our “senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb 5:14).

The Lord tells the ministerium up through the ages – in the person of the apostles-to-be – that “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt 18:18; cf. also 16:19). The meaning of binding and loosing in the Jewish context of the day meant allowing and disallowing.

The Lord says in somewhat the same vein in John 20:23, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Of course, we remit and retain as under-shepherds ministering His word and will, ministers of _His_ forgiveness.

It is the job of pastors and elders today to determine what the _pharmakeia_-class drugs are, and enforce that in the churches by teaching and discipline. In the 3FU’s Belgic Confession, Art. 29, it says concerning one of the three marks of the true church, that “church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin . . . according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto corrected”. This is part of our function as the shepherds of God’s flock.

As a lawfully appointed elder pastoring a church I have made this determination in accordance with the word of God. I have not made it with bias or in ignorance, but by prayer and spiritual discernment. I will hold to this before God knowing I am expressing His will.

This goes against the “libertarian” spirit that has come into the church, along with the zeitgeist of the times – this also in the church – that authority is not to be acknowledged or obeyed, for some say, “We have our own minds and opinions in the matter.” But I have no doubt that there shall be a consensus among conservative pastors and elders in this discernment. And the Lord shall see to it that His servants – those who labor and watch over the flock – have the authority by the Holy Spirit to interpret His will and to establish it in His house, His holy temple of living stones.

Which is not to say that honest questioning, as is seen here, is inappropriate. But the final judgment will be made by the ministers of the Lord.

For there are days coming, days of lawlessness, where the purity of the church will be of utmost importance in His eyes, as the world, the flesh, and the devil will seek to infiltrate it with error and false spirits and deceptions. Pastors and elders will then, as now, guide the flock in safety.

It may be edifying to ask the pastors of your acquaintance their views on the subject.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Brad. I drink much more stronger stuff than beer. LOL. I believe the first post is right. You don't. I don't believe in Evolution as some in the Reformed supposed faith do. Okay. Is it a matter of subjective thought? I believe Steve's OP. You don't. Go for it.

Do we need to go back to the one toke argument and what high means. 

As I said before.... I have been made merry by alcohol. Tell me marijuana ever made you merry. I can only relate to you that you are outside scripture where I was not in this matter.

BTW, Steve has more exegesis than your thoughts or Ruben's. Are you sure you want to say eisegesis? I haven't heard one word from God's word on this matter from you.


----------



## TimV

PuritanCovenanter said:


> As I said. I am not a rationalist nor am I existentialist. I am not a logistician either. I still think Steve's review is correct standing on my side. You can't present that. What is the theology of the occult. I find it hard to present the theology of Federal Vision. What is your definition of the Occult? Define it again. Please?



Steve's claim that some Yogis get supernatural power by their discipline is a microcosm of his whole argument. You don't have to have fancy words like existentialist or rationalist to simple say, OK, please prove it to me. Every test ever done shows that Steve's statement is false. He believes the statement without the kind of evidence normally demanded of extravagant claims. I don't, any more than I believe the nearer stars revolve around the earth 150,000,000 times the speed of light. Or that if Gill and Calvin were alive today they'd have the same view as modern baptist KJVO's. Or that the nazis still have moon bases. They are just claims that some people demand I believe based on their own personal passion, and I don't roll that way.

As to the Bible, mandrake and myrrh are both hallucinogenic plants that are mentioned. We know for an absolute fact opium was a chief ingredient in Greek and Roman medicine, especially for the army. There's not a single word in the Bible that forbids their use.

For a perhaps more practical discussion aid, perhaps someone here holding to Steve's theories will make a list of all plants that are sinful to use.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------




Jerusalem Blade said:


> *It is the job of pastors and elders today to determine what the pharmakeia-class drugs are*, and enforce that in the churches by teaching and discipline. ....
> *As a lawfully appointed elder pastoring a church I have made this determination in accordance with the word of God*. I have not made it with bias or in ignorance, but by prayer and spiritual discernment.



I can't imagine any NAPARC denomination doing anything other than slapping your hand if that ever came to a GA level trial.


----------



## seajayrice

Presuming psilocybin mushrooms were legal, the biblical position allows the Believer to enjoy these elements much the same as a good scotch whisky?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

The kingdom of God is not a tyranny, neither is it a democracy, but an absolute monarchy, the Sovereign of which is trusted and loved by His people, and they likewise trust and love the governors He appoints throughout His nation to rule, protect, and nurture them.

So when these governors of His make a decision regarding the licitness or illicitness of things not explicitly named in the Scriptures (for names change over centuries and millennia) but addressed nonetheless as to their principles and properties, the people of the Sovereign will heed those into whose care and oversight they have been given.

For we know that in the last days perilous times shall come, for men shall be lovers of themselves, unholy, despisers of those that are good, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away (2 Tim 3:1 ff.).

On another note, I see my old sparring partner, TimV, insists that yogis have no supernatural power, as the Indian government did a study of one for their army, and he manifested nothing. And Mr. Tim further opines that my claim to the contrary “is a microcosm of his whole argument”, I suppose meaning it is all nonsense.

If I’d said that when you leave milk out in the warmth for a while it’ll turn sour, and someone said, “Hogwash! Prove it!”, I’m not sure where I’d start (if I wasn’t around to make an actual demonstration), given the obviousness of it.

Have you been living in an anti-supernatural corner of your mind these many years, Tim (though I know you are well-travelled and educated)? What’s with this attitude I seem to see in some Reformed people?

In 2 Thessalonians 2:9, when Paul is talking of the man of sin “whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders”, this word “power” is in the Greek _dunamis_, from which we get the English word dynamite, meaning that this satanic agent has actual powers, and such as will deceive those who believed not the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness, with “strong delusion”. And the lesser agents of darkness, who are called by Paul “false apostles, deceitful workers . . . [appearing as] ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor 11:13, 15), likewise deceive not only through false teachings but lying signs and wonders.

Tim goes on, “Every test ever done [on a yogi or guru] shows that Steve's statement is false.” What? Who’s doing the testing? Governments? Academies?

But even governments have in their intelligence sectors departments who seek to develop psychics and their abilities for the purpose of warfare; the U.S. and Russia have been noted for this; it’s been written of and detailed a number of times.

Is it possibly being asserted that the deceiving works of Satan are only sham shows, and not with any kind of actual supernatural power? No wonder some seem to think of _pharmakeia_ as superstition and hogwash! If the anti-supernatural view as pertains to the satanic kingdom is an underlying paradigm it falls to reason one would disbelieve concerning sorcery.

To me this is a dangerous view for the church to hold, for it gives great advantage to the forces that oppose us, underestimating enemies who are our mortal foes, not being aware of what they are able to do. If this is a Reformed distinctive (I don’t know that this is so) it bodes ill for the days to come.

If any NAPARC denomination – any church I was a member in – would take a stand permitting as licit – given the civil legality of – marijuana or other psychedelics, let me state very clearly that would be a deal-breaker. I would renounce my membership and leave that church as surely as if it had called immoral sexuality acceptable.

And things may come to that in the future. I hope not, but I see signs of inroads being made in all sorts of areas – theology, morals, prayer and spirituality, ecclesiology, etc – and strong discernment ministries lacking in otherwise good churches.

Strange times.


----------



## TimV

Leaving milk out to sour is demonstrable. You don't make a difference between something easily verifiable and something you just feel like believing since if fits into your world view. It's a classic sign of a conspiracy theorist.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> But even governments have in their intelligence sectors departments who seek to develop psychics and their abilities for the purpose of warfare; the U.S. and Russia have been noted for this; it’s been written of and detailed a number of times.



They even make movies about Men Who Stare At Goats and kill them with them psychic powers. But pointing to the movie and quoting 2 Thes. 2:9 doesn't prove a correlation.




Jerusalem Blade said:


> If any NAPARC denomination – any church I was a member in – would take a stand permitting as licit – given the civil legality of – marijuana or other psychedelics, let me state very clearly that would be a deal-breaker. I would renounce my membership and leave that church as surely as if it had called immoral sexuality acceptable.



Would there be a NAPARC wide list of sinful plants? Or would every Session make their own list and expect all other Reformed churches to uphold those individual lists as valid?


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Rafalsky, I believe our interaction on this thread has probably come to a conclusion. Let me thank you for your willingness to invest time and effort into this discussion, for your clear and detailed answers to some of the questions that have been raised, and for the kindness you've shown to me in your posts. I am still unconvinced by your presentation, but I am grateful for your engagement with the practical difficulties your view raises. I think any discussion of the right and duty of ecclesiastical authorities to regulate substances must be reserved for a separate thread. If there are multiple posts on the topic while I'm typing this, I'll split them off.

As I see it, these things still haven't been addressed.
1. If the prohibition of _pharmakeia_ is a prohibition of the use of substances, it leaves untouched alternative means of practicing sorcery, unsuccessful attempts at sorcery, and raises the question of what substances have not ever been perverted for sorcery. Whereas if it prohibits sorcerous activity, it prohibits the perversion of any substance to that end, while allowing the proper use of each substance (which in some cases may be to make rope, or as an industrial lubricant, or etc.).
2. The possibility of this being a feint to distract our attention from the real concentration of demonic activity. For instance, I think it's fairly well accepted that Manuel Noriega was a standard-issue brutal Central American dictator, eventually removed from power by US intervention, but kept in power through US assistance in the face of democratic opposition from within Panama itself: and this support was given in the name of the war on drugs. The war on drugs allowed a murdering, thieving, torturing bully to oppress his people. Instead of looking for the devil in plants, I think we might find him playing tennis with Noriega.
3. It still has not been explained:
A. Why the demonic interpretation of these experiences is the most or only viable interpretation.
B. By what mechanism certain substances expose to demonic influences.
C. What bearing other phenomena often associated with demonic activity might have on our understanding of drug use.
4. Why the Scriptural prohibition of intoxication is insufficient to regulate substance abuse.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Ruben, 

To start from the top:

1. With regard to your question concerning alternative means of practicing sorcery, I think what I wrote in the OP covers this:

Very often we find, in both the OT and the New, [the] use of synecdoche (stating a part for the whole) when the word _pharmakeia_ and its cognates are used, the use of drugs being the essential and common component in almost all of the “magic arts”.

As an example, I quote from the old ISBE,

“The word translated in the AV ‘witchcraft’ in Gal 5:20 (_pharmakeia_) is the ordinary Greek one for ‘sorcery,’ and is so rendered in the RV, though it means literally the act of administering drugs and then of magical potions. It naturally comes then to stand for the magician’s art, as in the present passage and also in . . . the LXX of Isa 47:9 . . . translated ‘sorceries’.” [emphasis added –SMR] (_International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_, James Orr, Ed., Vol. 5, p. 3097.)​
So we see that _pharmakeia_ refers to the drugs specifically and by synecdoche to the general field of magic arts, even as “Moscow” stands for the entire nation of Russia. As for “unsuccessful attempts” I would suppose the intent would be sin even though it was not realized.

Your “it raises the question of what substances have not ever been perverted for sorcery” &etc. brings to mind the “sniffing of glue” or the use of nitrous oxide (laughing gas) for getting “high”. Surely these substances are licit when properly used, though a person using them to get high is perverting them (I won’t venture to say if the perverted use would be “sorcerous” due to the uncertain nature of the “high”).

You intimate that as “sorcerous activity” may be illicit, this would but “prohibit the perversion of any substance to that end, while allowing the proper use of each substance”. Then you give the example of industrial marijuana used for rope, textiles, etc. Okay, I do not deny there is a licit use of the hemp plant. This is related to the view which contests “that the smoking of marijuana _necessarily_ brings in demonic influence. Such a thing is unprovable.”

Merriam-Webster: Unprovable: Unable to be demonstrated by evidence or argument as true or existing.​
The real question is, Is there a licit use of the _smoking_ or otherwise ingesting leaf or resin (hashish) marijuana? Leaving aside the purported “medicinal use” for the moment, the question may be rephrased, “Can the smoking of marijuana ever _not_ bring in demonic influence?”

The answer to these questions would directly relate to the nature of the “influence” of the drug (active ingredient of marijuana, THC) on the state of mind of the user. This, by the nature of the case, would have to be determined by testimonies from subjective evaluation. What in determining this would constitute credible testimony? Although there is also the testimony of religious / cultic usage where the state of mind in question is known to bring spirits in contact with humans. The U.S. government, in allowing a similar substance to Native American tribes on religious grounds, seems to be acknowledging the validity of their testimony (i.e., the witness of the shamans regarding the religious nature of their spirit communications).

But apart from this latter example, should the absence of a uniform testimony on the state of mind produced simply be allowed to silence the testimony of responsible witnesses, and thus render the impossibility of making a determination? Given the extremity of the sanctions of Scripture on _pharmakeia_, this seems unwise, at least for those given the care of souls, and responsible before God as watchmen over His house. We shall tackle this issue a little further on.

2. You bring up “The possibility of this being a feint to distract our attention from the real concentration of demonic activity”? Because there are other “real concentrations of demonic activity” in the world we should consider the focusing on one in particular “a feint to distract” from them? I don’t think you hear that from me, who is certainly not distracted from drawing attention to other real demonic activity, such as the doings of evil men and governments, energized and somewhat controlled by the powers of darkness (under the sovereign hand of God, of course).

To focus on one activity is not to disregard or minimize others. Not in a healthy mind.

3. A. The “interpretation of these experiences” as being demonic requires some understanding of them. This is a difficult thing to convey to those who have no personal knowledge of them. We know that if a politician has been found out to have smoked marijuana as a youth, this may be enough to render him disqualified to hold office. In the church it should be otherwise, as for a godly and mature man to render a decision as to the nature of the state of mind in question, this would be of great value in making an assessment of it.

I want to stress again, this is no mere academic or abstruse theological point, similar to Rome’s “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”, as the penalty for the regular practice of violating the _pharmakeia_ prohibition is denial of entrance into God’s city and a mandated consignment to the lake of fire. Given this, we _*must*_ – as the church of God – render a clear determination regarding this matter! It is imperative we come to clarity, and it is fair to warn those who would leave it hanging in a limbo of uncertainty or relativity (how much, how little) that they may well be endangering multitudes of professing Christians to commit grievous, damnable sin.

The church of Jesus Christ, which shall judge angels, ought to a) take this matter very seriously _on the pastoral level_, and b) seek a church-wide consensus for the safety of the flock, and the purity of the Bride, that she “cleanse [herself] from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” (2 Cor 7:1) and be separate from the
world’s Babylonian ways.

If the church is to indeed judge angels then she has been given withal to make an assessment in this matter. Where are the pastors who have partaken of this and other hallucinogens in their younger years or times of darkness? Step forth and give an account, for your sojourn among the _pharmakeia_ activities of earlier years was given you for the good of the saints in this moment of time (and without exculpating you of responsibility for those sins, of which you have been cleansed and forgiven), that others of the people of God may not be lured into the grievousness of _pharmakeia_.

It will not do to equivocate and put the matter on a back burner. If there can not at this time be a church-wide meeting of the minds, then let it be on a smaller, local level. But it must be done. For there are very many, in the church as well as out, who desist from partaking of marijuana _*only*_ because it’s not legal and not worth a bust, and resultant criminal record. One might even say the same for the other _pharmakeia_-class drugs, like LSD (which is being given presently in select therapeutic settings), were they to be made legal. One cannot tell what laws may change in the years to come. With the Trojan horse of “medicinal marijuana” opening the door for many to use it who have “some pain” rather than other analgesics, it will be taken advantage of, for it comes with the added “benefit” of a serious high.

B. I tried to explain “by what mechanism” these substances “expose to demonic influences” in an earlier post, but what would be an acceptable source of information to you? There is much literature on the subject for those who really want to track it down, from many different angles and disciplines.

The mechanism is by its nature psychopharmacological, the effect of chemicals on the brain and nervous system, which in the case of _pharmakeia_-class drugs is unique, and peculiar to those chemicals. They affect the nervous system and brain in their connection to the spirit or soul of the man, activating it to awareness in a manner that is the sole province of the Holy Spirit to do in holiness, and this is why the effect of these drugs is called a counterfeit of the Holy Spirit. In answer to the above noted point questioned, this action upon the nervous system and spirit _*necessarily*_ brings in demonic influence. Awareness in such a state is unlawful if brought about by other than the Lord. It may not always bring about _consciousness_ of being in a spiritual realm or of spirits, but even the lower-grade heightened consciousness of intense sexual, culinary, aesthetic, or mental pleasure is still due to the energized spirit of the man functioning as an enhancer of sensual pleasure, and is a low-level experience of _pharmakeia_ activity. It is demonic. It is a demonically-enhanced love of the world, through the eyes, the flesh, and the pride of life (1 John 2:15, 16). It snares many souls, and one may see why its prohibition will be fought against vehemently.

C. I’m not sure what “other phenomena often associated with demonic activity” you have in mind. This seems sort of a fishing expedition question. Are you looking to find out from me “other phenomena”? I don’t see its relevance. There are many such. You have noted many of them earlier under the category of deception. Even _pharmakeia_ is to that end. Not the deception that makes it but appear to be something real when it is not, but the deception as to what _is_ real in the spirit.

In his book, _The Dust of Death: The Sixties Counterculture and How It Changed America Forever_, Os Guinness says concerning this apparent potent awareness, 

“Reality is not to be mistaken for legitimacy. In a day of contentless religious experiences, the appeal of powerful spiritual phenomena is far wider than their legitimacy.

“Interestingly, the word used for sorcery predicted in this context in Revelation is the word _farmakeia_, from which we get our word _pharmacy_ or _drugs_. It is far from fanciful to interpret this as a prediction of the prevalence of drug-inspired sorcery at the end times. The Apostle John warns in his letter that we must test the spirits to see whether or not they are truly from God. In our day, when healing, fortunetelling, and speaking in tongues are so in vogue, there must be neither naiveté nor total skepticism, but a critical discernment made possible within the Christian framework.” (pp. 309, 310).​
Back to your question, there is much phenomena indicating demonic activity. Outside the church there is the rise of potent New Age spirituality, whose practitioners convey a spiritual force that attracts and keeps many in their webs; the same goes for the Eastern branch of New Age activity in America (and other lands, too). Despite TimV’s remonstrance, those familiar with the spirituality of Eastern and New Age gurus are aware of the demonic power they have, both in teaching and having their disciples experience powers of a supernatural nature.

Many have been made susceptible to these spiritualities of deception though their initial experiences with _pharmakeia_-class drugs.

We are in a rising tide of spiritual and mental deception from the world about us, as the devil prepares his strategies against the church and to set up his own kingdom. The postmil view which denies this present activity and the premil view which says we’ll be outa here before such goes down both disable the discernment and resultant preparedness necessary for these times.

4. The “Scriptural prohibition of intoxication” is sufficient to address drunkenness, but is not applicable to sorcery. A little “intoxication” by a sorcerous potion is still _pharmakeia_ activity, as I noted above. Whereas a little “intoxication” by alcohol may be acceptable, if it is not drunkenness or habitual so that the user depends on it for his or her state of well-being.

-------

It may be, Ruben, that there is “limited supernaturalism” extant within the Reformed churches – or some of its members – which intimates (though perhaps not openly expressed) that in Christ and in the church we are so removed from demonic activity that they are negligible as far as we are concerned. It may go even further to deny that demonic power is able to operate in the world in individuals who have given themselves over to be channels of such (whether or not they know what they are vessels of). If this is an attitude here, that may indeed be a factor in the difficulty to apprehend the things I am positing. For if supernatural power is limited to Christ and His church, then all the rest of “alleged” demonic power and influence is bogus, sorcery, gurus, and all!

I trust the Lord will give His church the discernment needed to stand in His power and presence in the evil day, and to know how to keep ourselves pure from the encroachments of a seductive spirit of worldly and Babylonish pleasure.

I hope I have answered these satisfactorily, though I realize I may not have done so convincingly to your mind.


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Rafalsky, I must admit I had not anticipated such an exhaustive reply. Thank you again for your clarity and thoroughness.

I believe your first point may really have touched on the ground of the matter.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> 1. With regard to your question concerning alternative means of practicing sorcery, I think what I wrote in the OP covers this:
> 
> Very often we find, in both the OT and the New, [the] use of synecdoche (stating a part for the whole) when the word _pharmakeia_ and its cognates are used, the use of drugs being the essential and common component in almost all of the “magic arts”.
> 
> As an example, I quote from the old ISBE,
> 
> “The word translated in the AV ‘witchcraft’ in Gal 5:20 (_pharmakeia_) is the ordinary Greek one for ‘sorcery,’ and is so rendered in the RV, though it means literally the act of administering drugs and then of magical potions. It naturally comes then to stand for the magician’s art, as in the present passage and also in . . . the LXX of Isa 47:9 . . . translated ‘sorceries’.” [emphasis added –SMR] (_International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_, James Orr, Ed., Vol. 5, p. 3097.)​
> So we see that _pharmakeia_ refers to the drugs specifically and by synecdoche to the general field of magic arts, even as “Moscow” stands for the entire nation of Russia. As for “unsuccessful attempts” I would suppose the intent would be sin even though it was not realized.



A word which speaks of the administration of drugs has had its scope narrowed (presumably by usage) to the use or administration of drugs in sorcerous ways (presumably because of the high profile of drug use in sorcery) to the point where "drug administrator" comes to mean, precisely, _sorcerer_, and "drug administration" means _sorcery_. Now would that word be applied to someone who practiced sorcery with incantations, strobe lights, and so forth, _even without the use of any drugs at all_? If the word hasn't come to that point, then it doesn't prohibit "the magic arts" absolutely but only in their pharmaceutical aspect. If it has, it doesn't prohibit drug use or administration simply, but solely in their sorcerous aspect (which I think you accept, because you are not against medicinal drugs, perhaps not even against drugs which are otherwise in the _pharmakeia_ class if there is a medical situation calling for them). 

Are we agreed as to the lexical fact? By a natural progression _pharmakos_ and _pharmakeia_ now mean, simply, _sorcerer_ and _sorcery_ respectively, without regard to the means employed or the success experienced.

If we are, it leaves this one crucial point.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> The mechanism is by its nature psychopharmacological, the effect of chemicals on the brain and nervous system, which in the case of _pharmakeia_-class drugs is unique, and peculiar to those chemicals. They affect the nervous system and brain in their connection to the spirit or soul of the man, activating it to awareness in a manner that is the sole province of the Holy Spirit to do in holiness, and this is why the effect of these drugs is called a counterfeit of the Holy Spirit. In answer to the above noted point questioned, this action upon the nervous system and spirit _*necessarily*_ brings in demonic influence. Awareness in such a state is unlawful if brought about by other than the Lord. It may not always bring about _consciousness_ of being in a spiritual realm or of spirits, but even the lower-grade heightened consciousness of intense sexual, culinary, aesthetic, or mental pleasure is still due to the energized spirit of the man functioning as an enhancer of sensual pleasure, and is a low-level experience of _pharmakeia_ activity. It is demonic. It is a demonically-enhanced love of the world, through the eyes, the flesh, and the pride of life (1 John 2:15, 16). It snares many souls, and one may see why its prohibition will be fought against vehemently.



Please forgive (and correct) me if I have missed something, but I think you don't have Scripture support for this: it is based on experience and testimony, and hence the need for discernment. Unless some drugs are intrinsically sorcerous when ingested, they don't fall under the prohibition of sorcery as such, but only under the prohibition of their use for sorcery. But in a sense this brings us around full circle. How do we know that the demonic interpretation of the drug experience is the best one? Do the arguments in favor of the demonic interpretation equally support the demonic interpretation of other phenomena, like sleep paralysis? Clearly the fact that it _felt_ demonic to some cannot be regarded as sufficient; to others it did not feel demonic. I was once asked to view a video which I shall not identify, but which seemed to me like the most blatantly demonic thing I have ever encountered; but for that I have only my instincts, whereas Scripture tells me that requiring God's people to abstain from meats which God has created to be received with thanksgiving is a doctrine of devils (1 Timothy 4:1-5). Given a desire not to go beyond what is written, and given the things which Scripture does clearly identify as demonic (e.g., idolatry, statism, certain kinds of regulations), I do wonder if an appeal to discernment, to experience is enough to prove the point. Now please understand, Mr. Rafalsky, I am not intimating that you are endeavoring to spread a doctrine incited by devils, and I do understand that the contention is that God has not given these substances for ingestion (unless perhaps in narrow cases of medical necessity), anymore than He has given poison ivy or cyanide for ingestion. But I hope you can also understand why it is taking a great deal of persuasion, because Scripture doesn't identify "_pharmakeia_-class drugs", or even necessarily maintain that such a class exists.

It is true that demons could be active on very many fronts, and certainly I did not mean to say that you minimized the reality of demonic activity in other realms. In light of the fact that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, though, I do wonder if he puts in anywhere near as much time in a witches' coven as he does in conservative churches. 

I am not sure that "limited supernaturalism" gets very close to my point of view, although I have no doubt that there are some limited supernaturalists out there. But surely a hallmark of demonic activity is deceit (their leader is the father of lies); and as such, clean-living prosperity gospel preachers may be, without any use of drugs or techniques of altered consciousness, as much agents of Satan as the most impressive of yogis.

Now let me ask one further question. Is it your belief that the Holy Spirit gives a heightened consciousness, and this holy awareness is mimicked by the effect of these drugs?


----------



## kvanlaan

Wow - this is quite the thread; very interesting concept. 

I do see a bit of what was mentioned previously, that there seems to be a 'running back to science' going on that is perhaps subconscious, but there nonetheless. We seem, as Reformed believers, to hate ascribing supernatural/spiritual reasons to things almost to the extent that the Pentecostals seem to love it. I am not sure if it is a Reformed default setting, a bit of cessationist 'oversteer' perhaps, that we lean more heavily on the intellectual and less on the 'spiritual' (but in all things attempt to maintain a scriptural focus). Whatever the case may be, it has been a very enlightening read.

I was reading "The Presence of Spirits in Madness" by VanDusen and came upon something that I found tangentially germane to the discussion (others may see it as a red herring or just plain out-to-lunch, I don't know). It is simply that our concept of what is going on with the mentally ill, is for the most part, defined by science. Van Dusen's work with those that hear 'voices' led him to a much different destination than conventional psychology, which provides answers that we 'know' to be true, because we don't ascribe demon possession to madness in the same way as was previously done. Much of the ammunition we bring to bear in the opposite direction then, is personal, anecdotal material, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny like empirical evidence (without folks like VanDusen and Swedenborg in the mix). And yet, there are people well acquainted with such situations that have been saying for years that this is indeed the work of demons and that such forces play a larger part in our lives than we'd like to admit. But as they have no 'authority' in the matter, such claims can be dismissed when their anecdotal evidence does not match with ours. But we also have historical examples that are detrimental to the argument: the Oracle at Delphi for instance, who was apparently under the influence of a stream of ethylene gas rather than that of the 'spirits'. Science always has an answer, and sometimes it's even right.

But I think we too often don't want to go down Steve's path because it doesn't fit with our preconceived notions of what we've experienced. I did plenty of stupid things in my earlier years, which included smoking up, and while there were no supernatural experiences attached thereto, there was an otherworldliness to it that could conceivably have been a 'lowering of a wall' between the real and the supernatural. We see the Celts felt the same way about Halloween. Whether that particular time had anything to do with it or not, I am not sure, I don't claim to know the mind of Satan and his minions on this. But the Celts' steadfast belief in a 'thinning of a veil' between our world and another had something to do, I think, with the activities of that night on the part of both these men and demonic activity.

This is all to say that I think that Steve is onto something.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ruben,

To further clarify, I would say not only does “ ‘drug administrator’ come to mean, precisely, _sorcerer_, and ‘drug administration’ mean _sorcery_”, but also one who participates in _pharmakeia_ activity is a sorcerer and the _pharmakeia_ activity _is_ sorcery.

One who attains a state of awareness so as to have communion with spirits _*or*_ to function in that realm with spiritual power through “incantations, strobe lights, and so forth” is also practicing sorcery, even though pharmaceuticals are not being used. I have heard of those who may do this through the agency of spirits without any longer having to use the drugs. They have become familiar with the spirits. Technically gurus who use demonic power to manifest spiritual “light” and “powers” I would term sorcerers, though the term guru (as I am using it here) is a class of demonic practitioner by itself.

The prohibition against _pharmakeia_ forbids the magic arts absolutely, both as regards the generally essential component of drug use, as well as by synecdoche the entire enterprise.

You ask, “Are we agreed as to the lexical fact? By a natural progression _pharmakos_ and _pharmakeia_ now mean, simply, _sorcerer_ and _sorcery_ respectively, without regard to the means employed or the success experienced.” We are agreed, although if “success” is not ‘experienced” the person is not actually a sorcerer nor has committed sorcery, but is in the same class of guilt as one desiring to commit adultery (or murder) but not having done so. Also, you may have noticed in the OP’s link to a research article on medicinal marijuana, there is a genuinely medicinal use by extract of the cannabinoids, and other use. I quote from the article:“The main success of THC has been found in patients suffering from AIDS-related wasting syndrome and in some cases in which patients are suffering from intractable pain. However, nearly all of these studies involved the use of controlled doses of purified cannabinoids, bypassing the adverse effects associated with smoking marijuana. Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Georgetown University School of Medicine, says that most opponents of the medical use of smoked marijuana are not hostile to the medical use of THC, 'while most supporters of smoked marijuana are hostile to the use of purified chemicals from marijuana, insisting that only smoked marijuana leaves be used as "medicine," revealing clearly that their motivation is not scientific medicine but the back door legalization of marijuana'.” –The Medical “Benefits” of Smoking Marijuana (Cannabis): a Review of the Current Scientific Literature​Why have I studied these things? Finding myself in this realm many years ago, I determined to know what was what here. In Proverbs it says, “The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked” (21:12), and, “A wise man scaleth the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof” (21:22).

The problem with your view that I “don’t have Scripture support for this: it is based on experience and testimony, and hence the need for discernment” and thus renders the interpretation I posit merely subjective at best, is that we have a life or death matter due to the sanctions against sorcerers and sorcery – eternal punishment in the lake of fire – completely unresolved, and relegated to a back burner with no prospect of being definitively dealt with. When you have a large number of people put at such risk of running afoul these sanctions and you equivocate as to what the acts are they punish, well, you have an iffy church unable to give people the directions to keep them out of Hell. Is that acceptable? What would you say to those who come to you for counsel? “Ruben, I have access to some great and potent marijuana, and I’m a Christian living in Amsterdam where it’s perfectly legal, and I’ve been reading your posts and I get the view that if partake of this weed in moderation and with regard to safety (i.e., not driving or operating machinery) I’m not in violation of the Bible. Is that right?” What can you say by way of counsel to this person? That you’re not sure? Or yes it’s okay?

I am not picking on you personally, Ruben, as I know you are seeking to understand, but rhetorically addressing the church in your person.

The sin of sorcery is on a par with murder, adultery, and lying. Can we not come up with a definition of what it is other than vague equivocations?

What I suggested was that – in item 3. A. in my previous post above – godly and mature men who have had experience with these things in their earlier years present a testimony to the church so she is able to make an assessment from their spiritual understanding of their past experience. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? (1 Cor 6:2-5)​In the absence of clarity as to what the _pharmakeia_-class drugs are, and to seek to ascertain if they even exist, what shall you do? Am I but talking to the wind when I keep saying that the horror of the sanctions against this (to some) _uncertain_ sin threaten a great many people who have no guidance in the matter? Is it of importance to you to determine precisely what is entailed in this deadly sin? It is to me!

I am focusing on one aspect of the demonic. I know there is a vast field pertaining to this subject. I have interest in just one thing in it for this present discussion. Murder is demonic (of the devil), as is adultery, and lying. Sorcery is listed with them; can it be we do not know what it is, or entails? We put it on the back burner at our peril. Do you have better suggestions than mine for figuring out what this Biblically prohibited activity is? I’d be interested to hear them. But we do have to figure it out. But I am repeating myself.

Do I think the Holy Spirit gives a “heightened consciousness”? Great question. It is certainly not heightened in the sense that _pharmakeia_-class drugs heighten it. With them there is a quickening not only of the spirit of man, but of his sensual faculties as well. They bring an awareness of bodily and soulish functions at a profound level, and outwardly of other spiritual beings, whether humans in their proximity or other sentient beings, even those invisibility-cloaked. The spirits may easily infuse spiritual phenomena into the beings tripping on the _pharmakeia_ drugs, as their consciousness is open and receptive to such input. Generally people not under the influence of such drugs are not open and receptive to such; their consciousness is not aware or sensitized to such.

As I sit here writing, no doubt there are demonic beings around (and angels too, most likely), but I have no awareness in this realm except the Holy Spirit give it, and He hardly ever gives such awareness, for He is not into promoting clairvoyance in His people. Nor am I interested in being aware of angels or demons. I _am_ interested in being aware of my physical surroundings, the psychological, emotional and physical life of those humans and animals in my environs, and last but not least, the presence of my God. The awareness the Holy Spirit gives is not “heightened” to perceive spirits – unless it be to give me spiritual discernment of something needful – or to amplify my sensory capacities. The awareness He gives is of my state of being, the state of those people around me, and of the presence of my Savior, who is bodily in the heavens but by His Spirit omnipresent, and particularly in intimate communion with me, unworthy though I am for such grace and love – but that’s what grace is, undeserved favor.

So, no, the Holy Spirit does not “heighten” consciousness in the sense used of the other substances. Consciousness of Him – Jesus, and the Father in Him – is the heart of life itself. Our Lord grants us to be aware of those things that are needful to us here; He is sparing so that we learn to live by faith, not by sensation. Our awareness of Him is a profound assurance in the depths of our being that His word is true, and all His promises are true. When His word says, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the age . . . I will never leave you nor forsake you . . . nothing can separate you from the love of God which is in Me”, this living word is the reality I live in. _This_ is the heightened consciousness the Spirit of Christ gives.

Ruben, I'll most likely be away for a few days, for sermon prep. I thank you for the discussion – it is most helpful to me for distilling my thoughts.

--------

The Lord doesn’t want to come back and find His bride stoned, but reflecting His majesty as she stands firm giving her testimony of Him and His Kingdom, even unto death.


----------



## Mushroom

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The Lord doesn’t want to come back and find His bride stoned, but reflecting His majesty as she stands firm giving her testimony of Him and His Kingdom, even unto death.


He probably doesn't want to find her tilting at windmills, fearful and superstitious, ascribing spiritul powers to inanimate objects (which is idolatry), and not apprehending the victory He won on our behalf over spiritual forces of darkness (who may have authority over worldlings, but none over us - we have authority over _them_) such that her energies are spent harping on indifferent matters and conjuring up boogey-men rather than proclaiming and exhibiting His gospel to a dying world, either.


----------



## seajayrice

I'd bet dollars to donuts Steve's skeptics have never done LSD.


----------



## Philip

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The problem with your view that I “don’t have Scripture support for this: it is based on experience and testimony, and hence the need for discernment” and thus renders the interpretation I posit merely subjective at best, is that we have a life or death matter due to the sanctions against sorcerers and sorcery – eternal punishment in the lake of fire – completely unresolved, and relegated to a back burner with no prospect of being definitively dealt with.



With all due respect, I don't see why we can't accept the historic position of the church that it is purpose that makes the activity sorcerous or not. Maybe it isn't the substance, but the intent. I haven't heard anyone in this discussion disagree that Christians shouldn't smoke pot---it violates the commandment against drunkenness. What we are questioning, though, is whether _in every case_ the use of marijuana involves demonic activity.

Again, _pharmakeia_ was historically understood to mean "potioneering" and (at certain points) alchemy (the latter clearly wasn't meant as a) it didn't exist in the 1st Century b) alchemy was actually a sort of early science---an attempt to manipulate natural substances rather than supernatural).


----------



## TimV

seajayrice said:


> I'd bet dollars to donuts Steve's skeptics have never done LSD.



If you've become one of Steve's fans, could you make a list of all sinful plants? And another question, if elders are given the authority to define which plants are sinful to use, what happens when there is a disagreement between elders? Steve said he was given the power, as an elder, to put a plant into a sinful to use category. So he names plant X sinful to use, and he's over ridden at the Presbytery level. If he leaves the denomination as he said he would under those circumstances, he's not allowing fellow elders the same authority he claims he's given.

PS Keven, that's not running to science, it's good, proper Calvinistic systematic logic.

Further, it escapes me how, as Ruben carefully and graciously explained, one cannot see that occult ceremonies including up to necromancy which don't involve plants can't be called witchcraft i.e. can't be condemned as Pharmakeia under Steve's definition.


----------



## Mushroom

seajayrice said:


> I'd bet dollars to donuts Steve's skeptics have never done LSD.


You lost that bet, CJ. As stated in an earlier post.

I don't understand the relavance to a discussion of marijuana.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In response to Tim...
First off, the plant itself is not demonic. The use of it is what is being considered. Second in response I don't think Steve is addressing all aspects.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I am focusing on one aspect of the demonic. I know there is a vast field pertaining to this subject. I have interest in just one thing in it for this present discussion. Murder is demonic (of the devil), as is adultery, and lying. Sorcery is listed with them; can it be we do not know what it is, or entails?



I think Steve admitted that one can practice sorcery without pharmaceuticals.... 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> One who attains a state of awareness so as to have communion with spirits or to function in that realm with spiritual power through “incantations, strobe lights, and so forth” is also practicing sorcery, even though pharmaceuticals are not being used.


----------



## kvanlaan

> PS Kevin, that's not running to science, it's good, proper Calvinistic systematic logic.



Let's remember that Calvin himself rightly (and probably wrongly) participated in the condemnation of those alleging to practice witchcraft. 



> Of witchcraft in particular, he says, "God would condemn to capital punishment all augurs, and magicians, and consulters with familiar spirits, and necromancers and followers of magic arts, as well as enchanters. And...God declares that He 'will set His face against all, that shall turn after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards,' so as to cut them off from His people; and then commands that they should be destroyed by stoning." Following this understanding of the Old Testament law, in 1545 twenty-three people were burned to death under charges of practicing witchcraft and attempting to spread the Plague over a three year period.



Is this a suspension of that systematic logic, or is it good Calvinistic illogical behaviour? Honestly, 'attempting to spread the plague' and other such behaviour likely consisted being accused of: owning a cockrel that laid an egg, or souring milk in a cow from 30 paces by nefarious means, or being an old woman that shape-shifted from woman to cat to raven. Elsewhere, I read that he was convinced that Deut 18's references to witchcraft meshed perfectly with his own conception of the practise, though the original meaning of the word had become obscured even before the time of the Septuagint's writing. 'Logic' is not a term that fits Calvin on this topic. 'Conviction', yes, but I don't know that we can attribute much of his belief in this to logic.


----------



## EricP

Perhaps, based on my own exegetical ignorance, on a sound "fools rush in" principle, I should put this thread in my "read only" category; but of course, as a traveled fool, I can't restrain myself. However, based on the OP, I might suggest a degree of exegetical care: while there are likely many reasons to avoid licit and illicit psychotropic drug use, basing such arguments on words/cognates rarely used in the NT (though not at the hapax level), and not exactly garden-variety in the Old can be a stretch, and thus might leave one more open to a "well that's your interpretation" line of argumentation which often devolves into misunderstanding and name calling. Looking even briefly at more current NT dictionaries (even NIDNTT, for example) would not suggest a *certain* connection between pharmakia and drug use--even in Greek secular culture there were likely many other avenues of sorcery than would suggest a *necessary* link between chemicals/drugs and witchcraft/sorcery/etc. Unless there is such a necessary link, while again there can be many reasons to avoid use of many different kinds and classes of drugs (be they sedative, neurotransmitter-related, hallucinogenic, etc, etc), it would go beyond Scripture to use God's Word as the fundamental rationale against their use (and of course the LXX is incredibly helpful in defining meaning and context for many Hebrew words and phrases, but not necessarily normative of definitive for Koine Greek). Personal experience is of course a valuable teacher for all of us, and can be the source of incredibly valuable insight; yet we all agree that our experiences should kneel to the clear meaning of Scripture as much as possible, given our fallen nature and fallen world.


----------



## py3ak

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben,
> 
> To further clarify, I would say not only does “ ‘drug administrator’ come to mean, precisely, _sorcerer_, and ‘drug administration’ mean _sorcery_”, but also one who participates in _pharmakeia_ activity is a sorcerer and the _pharmakeia_ activity _is_ sorcery.



Mr. Rafalsky, perhaps we are not quite as agreed as I'd hoped! Either you are saying here, "One who participates in sorcerous activity is a sorcerer", which is tautologous, or you are saying, "One who participates in drug administration is a sorcerer", which might come as a surprise to many compounding pharmacists. Of course, I'm fairly confident that you don't mean to say either one of those things, but without assigning to _pharmakeia_ and _pharmakos_ an equivocal meaning it is difficult to see what third option there is.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> One who attains a state of awareness so as to have communion with spirits _*or*_ to function in that realm with spiritual power through “incantations, strobe lights, and so forth” is also practicing sorcery, even though pharmaceuticals are not being used. I have heard of those who may do this through the agency of spirits without any longer having to use the drugs. They have become familiar with the spirits. Technically gurus who use demonic power to manifest spiritual “light” and “powers” I would term sorcerers, though the term guru (as I am using it here) is a class of demonic practitioner by itself.
> 
> The prohibition against _pharmakeia_ forbids the magic arts absolutely, both as regards the generally essential component of drug use, as well as by synecdoche the entire enterprise.



I think the difficulty I have here is that it appears to me that you are understanding the word both as a synecdoche and according to its etymology. That strikes me as being an instance of an equivocal definition of a term. However, if you have examples from Biblical or other literature of the use of a synecdoche where the term _simultaneously_ functions according to its etymological and figurative use I would be very interested to see them.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> You ask, “Are we agreed as to the lexical fact? By a natural progression _pharmakos_ and _pharmakeia_ now mean, simply, _sorcerer_ and _sorcery_ respectively, without regard to the means employed or the success experienced.” We are agreed, although if “success” is not ‘experienced” the person is not actually a sorcerer nor has committed sorcery, but is in the same class of guilt as one desiring to commit adultery (or murder) but not having done so. Also, you may have noticed in the OP’s link to a research article on medicinal marijuana, there is a genuinely medicinal use by extract of the cannabinoids, and other use. I quote from the article:“The main success of THC has been found in patients suffering from AIDS-related wasting syndrome and in some cases in which patients are suffering from intractable pain. However, nearly all of these studies involved the use of controlled doses of purified cannabinoids, bypassing the adverse effects associated with smoking marijuana. Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Georgetown University School of Medicine, says that most opponents of the medical use of smoked marijuana are not hostile to the medical use of THC, 'while most supporters of smoked marijuana are hostile to the use of purified chemicals from marijuana, insisting that only smoked marijuana leaves be used as "medicine," revealing clearly that their motivation is not scientific medicine but the back door legalization of marijuana'.” –The Medical “Benefits” of Smoking Marijuana (Cannabis): a Review of the Current Scientific Literature​Why have I studied these things? Finding myself in this realm many years ago, I determined to know what was what here. In Proverbs it says, “The righteous man wisely considereth the house of the wicked” (21:12), and, “A wise man scaleth the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof” (21:22).


It certainly makes far more sense to me to not use smoke in a medicinal way, though I understand that pills of various kinds can also create issues. Perhaps cannabinoid-infused olive oil is a sensible way to preserve the medically valuable elements in a usable form. But I don't think that this point is really germane to our discussion.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> The problem with your view that I “don’t have Scripture support for this: it is based on experience and testimony, and hence the need for discernment” and thus renders the interpretation I posit merely subjective at best, is that we have a life or death matter due to the sanctions against sorcerers and sorcery – eternal punishment in the lake of fire – completely unresolved, and relegated to a back burner with no prospect of being definitively dealt with. When you have a large number of people put at such risk of running afoul these sanctions and you equivocate as to what the acts are they punish, well, you have an iffy church unable to give people the directions to keep them out of Hell. Is that acceptable? What would you say to those who come to you for counsel? “Ruben, I have access to some great and potent marijuana, and I’m a Christian living in Amsterdam where it’s perfectly legal, and I’ve been reading your posts and I get the view that if partake of this weed in moderation and with regard to safety (i.e., not driving or operating machinery) I’m not in violation of the Bible. Is that right?” What can you say by way of counsel to this person? That you’re not sure? Or yes it’s okay?
> 
> I am not picking on you personally, Ruben, as I know you are seeking to understand, but rhetorically addressing the church in your person.
> 
> The sin of sorcery is on a par with murder, adultery, and lying. Can we not come up with a definition of what it is other than vague equivocations?
> 
> What I suggested was that – in item 3. A. in my previous post above – godly and mature men who have had experience with these things in their earlier years present a testimony to the church so she is able to make an assessment from their spiritual understanding of their past experience. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
> 
> Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
> 
> If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
> 
> I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? (1 Cor 6:2-5)​In the absence of clarity as to what the _pharmakeia_-class drugs are, and to seek to ascertain if they even exist, what shall you do? Am I but talking to the wind when I keep saying that the horror of the sanctions against this (to some) _uncertain_ sin threaten a great many people who have no guidance in the matter? Is it of importance to you to determine precisely what is entailed in this deadly sin? It is to me!



Certainly, the prohibition of sorcery is quite important to grasp and apprehend. It is also important that the church should not be pressured to *create* a definition, but to *derive* one from the word of God. No matter how appalling the sanctions or dangers are, the church should still be sure of its biblical basis. But again, if the discussion is to turn to church authority and its relation to drugs I think a new, more focussed thread would be a better venue.

As far as what I personally could say (I've never taken on the mantle of the personified church before!) I would start with _sobriety_: God has given us the spirit of a sound mind, we are to be temperate and self-controlled that we may bring our entire course of action under the influence of the Holy Spirit.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I am focusing on one aspect of the demonic. I know there is a vast field pertaining to this subject. I have interest in just one thing in it for this present discussion. Murder is demonic (of the devil), as is adultery, and lying. Sorcery is listed with them; can it be we do not know what it is, or entails? We put it on the back burner at our peril. Do you have better suggestions than mine for figuring out what this Biblically prohibited activity is? I’d be interested to hear them. But we do have to figure it out. But I am repeating myself.



This again, I think, would require a different thread to discuss fully. But something that leaps immediately to mind is having, or pretending to have, sources of supernatural information, whether it be the dead, or demons, or what have you.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Do I think the Holy Spirit gives a “heightened consciousness”? Great question. It is certainly not heightened in the sense that _pharmakeia_-class drugs heighten it. With them there is a quickening not only of the spirit of man, but of his sensual faculties as well. They bring an awareness of bodily and soulish functions at a profound level, and outwardly of other spiritual beings, whether humans in their proximity or other sentient beings, even those invisibility-cloaked. The spirits may easily infuse spiritual phenomena into the beings tripping on the _pharmakeia_ drugs, as their consciousness is open and receptive to such input. Generally people not under the influence of such drugs are not open and receptive to such; their consciousness is not aware or sensitized to such.
> 
> As I sit here writing, no doubt there are demonic beings around (and angels too, most likely), but I have no awareness in this realm except the Holy Spirit give it, and He hardly ever gives such awareness, for He is not into promoting clairvoyance in His people. Nor am I interested in being aware of angels or demons. I _am_ interested in being aware of my physical surroundings, the psychological, emotional and physical life of those humans and animals in my environs, and last but not least, the presence of my God. The awareness the Holy Spirit gives is not “heightened” to perceive spirits – unless it be to give me spiritual discernment of something needful – or to amplify my sensory capacities. The awareness He gives is of my state of being, the state of those people around me, and of the presence of my Savior, who is bodily in the heavens but by His Spirit omnipresent, and particularly in intimate communion with me, unworthy though I am for such grace and love – but that’s what grace is, undeserved favor.
> 
> So, no, the Holy Spirit does not “heighten” consciousness in the sense used of the other substances. Consciousness of Him – Jesus, and the Father in Him – is the heart of life itself. Our Lord grants us to be aware of those things that are needful to us here; He is sparing so that we learn to live by faith, not by sensation. Our awareness of Him is a profound assurance in the depths of our being that His word is true, and all His promises are true. When His word says, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the age . . . I will never leave you nor forsake you . . . nothing can separate you from the love of God which is in Me”, this living word is the reality I live in. _This_ is the heightened consciousness the Spirit of Christ gives.



Thank you sincerely for clarifying this: I was quite worried for a little while! The similar language I had heard before was from Rebecca Brown and to some extent also Madeleine L'Engle (in her novels, which hopefully are not meant for theological treatises!), so I didn't have a very positive context into which to place your remarks.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ruben, I'll most likely be away for a few days, for sermon prep. I thank you for the discussion – it is most helpful to me for distilling my thoughts.
> 
> --------
> 
> The Lord doesn’t want to come back and find His bride stoned, but reflecting His majesty as she stands firm giving her testimony of Him and His Kingdom, even unto death.



Likewise, Mr. Rafalsky, and may the Lord bless your preparations. I too will be signing off for the weekend.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am going to close this for a few days. Steve, Ruben, and I are going to be busy for a few days if I am understanding things. Will reopen it on Monday most likely. Sorry if that is inconvenient for anyone.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Josh, I didn’t say it to cast aspersions on those who disagree with me, for there are sincere objections to my view. I say it because if it were to become legal, on a large scale or a local scale, what would prevent Christians from getting high if the only guideline from the church was to do it “in moderation”?

--------

Tim, a “list of sinful plants” wouldn’t be necessary, only the statement of the church that _in principle_ hallucinogens were prohibited, and some examples could be given as a guide. If Christians _wanted_ to please God in this matter that would go a long way in their having a careful attitude.

--------

Ruben, I only wanted to add a note of precision to the terms “sorcerer” and “sorcery”, adding participation in as well as administration of. 

Earlier I had distinguished the three uses of _pharmakon_ (drug), as being medicine, poison, and sorcery. It is this latter which the NT uses exclusively. Pharmacists get off free!

With regard to synecdoche, please recall I gave two instances of commentators having this view:

Commenting on this last verse, Malachi 3:5, 

“And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers [_pharmakos_], and against the adulterers, and against false swearers”, [emphasis mine –SMR]​
Calvin says, “as the word is found here all by itself, the Prophet no doubt meant to include all kinds of diviners, soothsayers, false prophets, and all such deceivers: and so there is here again another instance of stating a part for the whole”, saying of the Jews of that time, “they were then so given up to gross abominations, that they abandoned themselves to magic arts, and to incantations . . . of the devil.” (_Calvin’s Commentaries_; Vol 15, p. 577).

Very often we find, in both the OT and the New, this use of synecdoche (stating a part for the whole) when the word _pharmakeia_ and its cognates are used, the use of drugs as the essential and common component in almost all of the “magic arts”. Consider, the Jews who translated the OT into the LXX invariably used a word signifying “drugs used as magic potions” _whenever_ referring to the magic arts and its practitioners. Why would they do that – use that particular word – were it not actually so? . . .

Likewise with the apostles – Paul and John – we see them using the words _pharmakeia_ and its cognates as such drugs are always connected by them with the magic arts, and in fact stand for them, even as Washington stands for the United States. Drugs stand for the magic arts – by synecdoche – being an essential ingredient in their activities.

As an example, I quote from the old ISBE,

“The word translated in the AV ‘witchcraft’ in Gal 5:20 (_pharmakeia_) is the ordinary Greek one for ‘sorcery,’ and is so rendered in the RV, though it means literally the act of administering drugs and then of magical potions. It naturally comes then to stand for the magician’s art, as in the present passage and also in . . . the LXX of Isa 47:9 . . . translated ‘sorceries’.” (_International Standard Bible Encyclopedia_, James Orr, Ed., Vol. 5, p. 3097.) [emphasis mine –SMR]​
I think this is a sign (this having to repeat things) that the thread has run its course, and redundancy will increase if it continues.

I do want to correct myself when in an earlier post I termed gurus “technically” sorcerers. They are not, as they do not use magic or drugs in their seeking demonic power (_they_ would call the power divine), but rather yogic disciplines. To those who say there is no such thing as _actual_ power manifested by these chaps, I will forgo answering so obvious a phenomena.

Actually, “cannabinoid-infused olive oil” – or let me more precisely say “THC-infused olive oil” – can _easily_ be as potent as the delivery-route of smoking it. Medicinal extraction of pure cannabinoids is different than either.

With respect to the thought of some that that this view concerning _pharmakeia_ / sorcery involves “superstition”, I shall reiterate from the OP an excerpt from the definition there:

Superstition: 1 a. A belief, conception, act, or practice resulting from ignorance, unreasoning fear of the unknown . . . trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation . . . 3: a fixed irrational idea : a notion maintained in spite of evidence to the contrary. (_Webster’s Third New International Dictionary_, 1971, p. 2296)​
The view I present certainly does not qualify despite some disagreeing that it is rational thought. To remedy this misunderstanding, and for those interested in studying this matter from a Christian and cultural-spiritual vantage, I would recommend Peter Jones’, _Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America_, and Os Guinness’, _The Dust of Death: The Sixties Counterculture and How It Changed America Forever_. These are cultural studies with spiritual discernment. Another important book of keen discernment is _A Time of Departing_, by Ray Yungen.

Peter Jones is an ordained pastor in the PCA and a professor at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, CA. A quote from the first chapter of his book: “The sixties counter-culture revolution was a spiritual movement. Woodstock, a spiritual happening, was the drug trip search for the Garden of Eden . . . The revolutionaries said it. We just didn’t believe them. The Beatles went East while the gurus came West. Chemically inspired highs of acid-heads and predictions of polytheists have diversified into the New Age multi-cultural spiritual highs of the nineties.” (pp. 21, 22)

As I have said earlier, it is odd that among those who object to this view are some having no experience in the matter, and likely have not considered cultural studies of that time period, and opine on what they are not really familiar with.

I think I have presented my case as well as I can. It is a simple and clear-cut issue to me. Mark my words that it shall become a burning issue (no pun intended) for the church in the time to come. Perhaps what I have presented may be a resource to be considered for that time. If anyone wants a pdf copy of the removed “Prop 19 and Legalization of Marijuana” thread as an additional resource PM me.

I think all our views have been aired. If you wanted to close the thread, Randy, I would have no objection. Further discussion would likely be redundant. And I need to get back to other tasks.


----------



## py3ak

Mr. Rafalsky, thank you once again for clarifying and refining. I too would be quite happy to move on to other things, especially as you are correct to observe that things begin to become redundant. Although we have and do disagree, let me state that I admire your zeal and your willingness not to dodge hard questions.

The state of the question is this: 
I affirm that the understanding of _pharmakeia_ put forth in the OP is based on an equivocal definition, one that attempts to take the word literally and figuratively at the same time and in the same text. (Hence my request for examples of other terms used literally and figuratively - or etymologically and synecdochically. I may not have been clear enough in that request, since you provided instead instances of the use of _pharmakeia_ itself as a synecdoche.) I believe you unwittingly admit the point in saying that the NT exclusively uses _pharmakon_ of sorcery. 
I deny that a _pharmakeia_ class of drugs is taught in Scripture, or can be derived therefrom. Some may be convinced by appeals to experience or discernment, but my own discernment tells me that this procedure is insufficiently Berean. Scripture doesn't identify the constituent drugs in this class, or describe the paramenters of the class, so their identification is arbitrary.
The question is not whether sorcery is demonic: certainly I don't deny that it is. And the question is not whether becoming involved with demons is acceptable, or trivial (no and no).
So the question returns to this: does Scripture identify the administration or ingestion of certain substances as being intrinsically sorcerous. This is what I deny.
To prevent offenses it may be noted that this does not give license to drug abuse: leaving aside the question of legality, Scripture still contains stern injunctions against inebriation, and positively commands sober-mindedness. I don't know that the virtue of sobriety (not merely in not being overpowered by alcohol, but in the sense that opposes superficiality, giddiness and flippancy while commending earnestness and seriousness) is highly valued in our culture, so perhaps it can seem like a slight safeguard against the onslaught of carnal delights in myriad form; but renewed teaching on and exemplification of this virtue may surprise us in its positive results.
To anticipate an objection, given that sorcery is such a serious offense, it might seem best to err on the side of caution. That is understandable; but Scripture doesn't give us that alternative, because an authoritatively imposed asceticism that interdicts what God has given is clearly and unambiguously identified as demonic. 
No doubt warnings can be given about the dreadful consequences that have often followed on drug use. As noted previously, dreadful consequences have also followed the war on drugs. 
The upshot is then, that to the question of whether Scripture prohibits administration or ingestion of a certain class of drugs as intrinsically sorcerous, the answer is no. 
As to why, then, the word for sorcery is connected to the word for drugs, no doubt sorcerers have frequently used drugs: no doubt many effects attributed by them to their magic art were simply the natural functioning of the herbs they ingested or administered. But they have not used only hallucinogenic drugs: it would be difficult to find an herb or plant they have not used. Ingredients which God commanded the Israelites to employ in the sacred incense for the tabernacle, or in the holy anointing oil, have been used by sorcerers, and are sold by occult stores today. These are obviously not in a proscribed class: and nonetheless, they are abused by sorcerers for sorcery, and that use falls under the condemnation of Scripture; but when sorcerers use, say, a hundred herbs attributing particular effects to each, it is arbitrary (absent Scriptural lines of distinction) to pick ten or twelve of those herbs and say that these are the truly sorcerous ones. And so, again, the identification of a _pharmakeia_ class of drugs is not drawn from Scripture, but rather from experience or from research. In the same vein, people hallucinate from causes other than drug use: if hallucinogenics are sorcerous, is any hallucination sorcery?
And this is why I still can't get away from the thought of superstition. Anyone who has ever had a high fever with delirium knows that the mind can do strange things; attributing strange-things-the-mind-does-under-the-influence-of-drugs to demons with only the warrant that has been suggested appears to be a classic example of attributing spiritual properties to material substances, and appealing to malevolent supernaturalism to explain a straightforward phenomenon. Before it is urged again that I have no personal experience, let me point out that others who share my views do, and that drugs are not the only means of having strange experiences.
For this reason I would urge readers, before leaving a church that doesn't share your discernment on the matter, before dismissing as deceived by Babylon's sorceries the brothers who disagree, before supporting a political posture that has provided cover for brutality and hypocrisy abroad, consider that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and reflect on what the Bible identifies as demonic, such as sorcery, idolatry, improper asceticism, false teaching, statism, a culture of self-gratification, and make sure you are disputing the dominion of darkness with the right weapons (prayer, the word of God and the armor of righteousness), and in the right places.

I am happy to try to answer any specific questions anyone may have, but I cannot continue to type up such long posts. And if anyone wants to start a discussion of some of the side issues touched on in this thread (like the nature of discernment, or the place of the church in declaring substances off limits) please do so on another thread.


----------



## TimV

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Tim, a “list of sinful plants” wouldn’t be necessary, only the statement of the church that in principle hallucinogens were prohibited, and some examples could be given as a guide.



And that leaves out opium, which has been used by God's people for at least 3000 years for pain, even though it's an hallucinogen. It just doesn't pass the test of systematic thought.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> To those who say there is no such thing as actual power manifested by these chaps, I will forgo answering so obvious a phenomena.



Is one single proven example too much to ask????? Back in the 70s I can remember kids at school talking about unarmed Japanese martial artists killing large numbers of US and Russian (armed) troops by running around pulling their hearts out and so forth. I can imagine 10 years before you hearing the same nonsense about yogis and gurus. But if there is no actual proof then not believing such stories isn't a lack of a healthy, Biblical faith. It's just naivete.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Ruben,

I hope we can wind this down now, as you also are of a mind to do. I think our essential point of disagreement is, as you put it, “does Scripture identify the administration or ingestion of certain substances as being intrinsically sorcerous”? You deny, I affirm. That it does not specifically identify the substances is perhaps the crux of the matter. To which I say that the principles of sorcery and the properties of said substances are clear, and are sufficient to identify substances up through the ages, while you say they are neither clear nor sufficient.

I appreciate the interaction, as it has made me think more deeply about the implications and fine points of the view I present, and also brought me to prayer to ask our Lord for wisdom and understanding.


----------



## py3ak

Thank you, Mr. Rafalsky, the interaction was profitable for me as well to gain a better handle on the matter.

The thread is now closed.


----------

