# Genesis 1:29 and cannibus



## Michael

Hello all,

Serious responses only please. What are your thoughts regarding the total prohibition of cannibus in this country (and many others) in light of Gen 1:29; 9:3? 

If this has been covered before, please provide a link.

Many thanks...


----------



## Michael

Dear Moderators,

Please feel free to correct my spelling error in the title of this thread.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

See this thread, this and this.


----------



## Ivan

Andrew,

Having read the threads you have provided, I must say that I have lived a sheltered life compared to many here at the PB.


----------



## Michael

Hi Ivan!


Andrew,

I also read the links provided. I was hoping to discuss, though, not so much the opinions on medical marijuana or the dangers of intoxication, but more the flat out appropriateness (or dare I say sinfulness) of prohibition in light of God's Word. From reading your links I believe I know where you stand. 

Maybe someone else has an opinion though. Is there a solid argument in support of a magistrate criminalizing God's provision?


----------



## Chris

If you want to use Genesis to justify the use of marijuana, you can't honestly stop there - you'd have to apply the same argument to other organic mind-altering substances, such as poppyseed derivatives, cocoa derivatives, etc. 

I'd suggest that trying to justify marijuana through the use of Genesis 1:29 would be at least as intellectually dishonest as, say, trying to use Titus 1:15 to justify _<insert pet besetting sin here>._


----------



## Michael

Hello Chris,

Thanks for your comments. I definitely see and appreciate your concern. I'm still interested in a response to the question though.

Is it OK for legislation to criminalize that which God had specifically given to man?

*I understand that this subject can draw opinions about people, but I think it's worthy of discussion with regard to a magistrate's accountability or freedom thereof.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Ezekiel16 said:


> Is it OK for legislation to criminalize that which God had specifically given to man?


100% yes. God gives man sexual desires, and we criminalize child molestation, statutory rape and other sexual abuses. An example where God's gift is abused, and used irresponsibly.

I'm not going to post my opinion on Marijuana use, mostly because I don't have one. Just answering your question.


----------



## Michael

Exagorazo said:


> 100% yes. God gives man sexual desires, and we criminalize child molestation, statutory rape and other sexual abuses. An example where God's gift is abused, and used irresponsibly.



I'm afraid I do not see the relation. If your example paralleled the question properly, well, sexual desires would have to be illegal, not the misuse of them.

I am not asking whether or not God set apart cannabis to be smoked and inhaled or the government's opinion about that predicament. I am asking if it is OK for government to criminalize what is essentially a plant given by God to man.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Ezekiel16 said:


> I am asking if it is OK for government to criminalize what is essentially a plant given by God to man.



I would say no, government should not.

I for one think it would be overall more beneficial if drugs were legalized and harsher punishments were given for abuses of all freedoms (drunkenness/DWI, rape, etc.).


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Ezekiel16 said:


> I'm afraid I do not see the relation. If your example paralleled the question properly, well, sexual desires would have to be illegal, not the misuse of them.
> 
> I am not asking whether or not God set apart cannabis to be smoked and inhaled or the government's opinion about that predicament. I am asking if it is OK for government to criminalize what is essentially a plant given by God to man.


The parallel I was drawing was the criminalization of something that is abused. Sex is a gift from God. Just as cannabis is. The abuse of sex is legislated against by the government (to a degree). It seems that the government's attitude to what the abuse of cannabis is is different to yours.

So, my point is; what should a Christian say is the difference between using Marijuana and abusing Marijuana? Just as sexual relations cross the line into abuse when it occurs outside of marriage, when does smoking pot cross that line?


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Is there a solid argument in support of a magistrate criminalizing God's provision?



No, by its very nature it's contradictory. Only the abuse of it is correct to be regulated. But man is clunky and very dull in fact closed to the idea of the fallen heart. Thus, man magistrates things of creation thinking they are causal, thus man blames God by assigning causality via such legistlation to the good Creation, e.g. alcohol, rather than addressing directly the crime issuing forth from the heart. Man thus merely mimics the old Adam, 'the woman you gave...led me astray, the wine did it, the cannibis did it, ad nausem. This is how utter confusion abounds when man attempts in vain to "do" the law of God. You end up with opinion discussions about what can and cannot be done, a never ending nightmare of do and don't. When the fundamental loss of the total depravity of the heart of man to do God's Law is lost sight of, this is the resultant chaos. The Pharisees had what, a few hunderd laws. Check out the "Code of Federal Regulations", and that's just federal law. We cannot even track the violations to our written laws any longer so monumental they are, only the one's high on the "radar" are of concern.

L


----------



## Michael

Exagorazo said:


> The parallel I was drawing was the criminalization of something that is abused. Sex is a gift from God. Just as cannabis is. The abuse of sex is legislated against by the government (to a degree). It seems that the government's attitude to what the abuse of cannabis is is different to yours.
> 
> So, my point is; what should a Christian say is the difference between using Marijuana and abusing Marijuana? Just as sexual relations cross the line into abuse when it occurs outside of marriage, when does smoking pot cross that line?



Hi Vaughan,

Hope all is well this morning. I understand the point you are making that both sex and marijuana plants are abused even though they are gifts from God. This issue I am concerned with, however, is that there is a big difference between how legislators have handled the two. It is perfectly legal to have sexual desires or intercourse up to the point where the state deems an act abusive, harmful, or immoral. But this model does not match well with how marijuana plants are handled. I'm not sure of the laws in Australia, but here it would be a criminal offense to simply have one growing on your property. The law criminalizes the plant's existence within a person's posession, far before we even have a chance to discuss abuse, harm, or immorality. This is why I mentioned that the example of sex does not parallel the question.



Larry Hughes said:


> No, by its very nature it's contradictory. Only the abuse of it is correct to be regulated. But man is clunky and very dull in fact closed to the idea of the fallen heart. Thus, man magistrates things of creation thinking they are causal, thus man blames God by assigning causality via such legistlation to the good Creation, e.g. alcohol, rather than addressing directly the crime issuing forth from the heart. Man thus merely mimics the old Adam, 'the woman you gave...led me astray, the wine did it, the cannibis did it, ad nausem. This is how utter confusion abounds when man attempts in vain to "do" the law of God. You end up with opinion discussions about what can and cannot be done, a never ending nightmare of do and don't. When the fundamental loss of the total depravity of the heart of man to do God's Law is lost sight of, this is the resultant chaos. The Pharisees had what, a few hunderd laws. Check out the "Code of Federal Regulations", and that's just federal law. We cannot even track the violations to our written laws any longer so monumental they are, only the one's high on the "radar" are of concern.
> 
> L



Hello Larry. Thanks for your input. I agree that our system pretty much shoots from the hip on much of the laws. Here is the best I can do so far in defense of the legislation at hand. Forgive me, this is not well prepared, I am just thinking out loud.

Perhaps the magistrate is validated in their decision for a total prohibition of cannabis simply because God has ordained man's dominion over the plant. Instilled in this dominion is the authority to pick and choose--in this case collectively as a society.

Another not-so-perfect example would be God's provision that every moving thing that lives shall be as food for man (Gen 9:3). This is clear, and yet our government will imprison someone who attempts to consume an endangered species. However the distinction again does not match well with the marijuana plant where simple possession is a crime. I don't think anyone would fear incarceration if a snow leopard was discovered on their property (or maybe they would if it was caged). My suggestion is that perhaps dominion includes the authority to sort through the Lord's provision. Of course, this seems to open up a pandora's box of possibilities.

I'm not trying to end my own thread here. That is simply the best I can do as far as an argument in support of criminalizing God's gift. As of yet I do not find it entirely sound though and am appealing to the greater minds here to help weigh it out.

Please continue to share your thoughts.


----------



## CDM

Chris said:


> If you want to use Genesis to justify the use of marijuana, you can't honestly stop there - you'd have to apply the same argument to other organic mind-altering substances, such as poppyseed derivatives, cocoa derivatives, etc.
> 
> I'd suggest that trying to justify marijuana through the use of Genesis 1:29 would be at least as intellectually dishonest as, say, trying to use Titus 1:15 to justify _<insert pet besetting sin here>._



Correct. This would be insane in the membrane.


----------



## Kevin

Chris said:


> If you want to use Genesis to justify the use of marijuana, you can't honestly stop there - you'd have to apply the same argument to other organic mind-altering substances, such as poppyseed derivatives, cocoa derivatives, etc.
> 
> I'd suggest that trying to justify marijuana through the use of Genesis 1:29 would be at least as intellectually dishonest as, say, trying to use Titus 1:15 to justify _<insert pet besetting sin here>._



the distinction Chris is the "effect". I think halucenogenic drugs are in a seperate category and can legitimatly be banned based on the laws against "witch-craft".

Since pot is not (ordinarily) a halucenogenic as it is commenly used it would not fall under the ban that I see in scripture against other drugs.

I would say however that the nearly universal use of pot/hash is as an intoxicant. Since scripture clearly forbids drunkeness it would be a sin for a xn to use (abuse) it in this way.


----------



## py3ak

Whether marijuana is evil or not is not the point. The point is whether the government has any Biblical right to regulate it. Being joyless is wrong; but does the government have a right to castigate people who are not happy? I don't see any warrant for the government to restrict a plant of any kind.


----------



## Chris

Ezekiel16 said:


> Hello Chris,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. I definitely see and appreciate your concern. I'm still interested in a response to the question though.
> 
> Is it OK for legislation to criminalize that which God had specifically given to man?
> 
> *I understand that this subject can draw opinions about people, but I think it's worthy of discussion with regard to a magistrate's accountability or freedom thereof.



I think I undedrstand your question now - sorry that I took the liberty of broadening its context. 

With regard to gov't regulation of that which God has given to man, I'd have to resoundingly say 'Yes!'. 

This gets tricky, I admit, and I don't want to set myself up as giving any sort of definitive answer, but here's my thoughts:


-Gov't regulates man's use of woman in some ways - a man can't beat his wife, hire her out for sex, etc. These are things that constitute abuse of the gift God gave to man. 

In the same vein, gov't has regulated activitites inextricably tied to alcohol abuse - such as DWI. Gov't has regulated the abuse of firearms (too much, in my opinion) even though it was God who originally gave men the means of defense. 


I could go on, but there's no use, because few items are directly comparable to marijuana. Most tangible gifts from God to man - woman, clothes, alcohol (I'm a baptist - am I allowed to use that example? ), food, ad nauseum, can be abused, and said abuse is harmful to society as a whole.


----------



## Chris

Kevin said:


> the distinction Chris is the "effect". I think halucenogenic drugs are in a seperate category and can legitimatly be banned based on the laws against "witch-craft".
> 
> Since pot is not (ordinarily) a halucenogenic as it is commenly used it would not fall under the ban that I see in scripture against other drugs.
> 
> I would say however that the nearly universal use of pot/hash is as an intoxicant. Since scripture clearly forbids drunkeness it would be a sin for a xn to use (abuse) it in this way.




In the context of whether Genesis justifies its regulation, can we consider the effects? 

I agree that it's sin to abuse it. The question is, where is the line between use and abuse?


----------



## py3ak

Trevor --I would answer your last question in the above post by saying that government protects its citizens from violence (whether from other nations in war or from other citizens in crime); but it shouldn't protect us from ourselves.


----------



## Chris

No, not at all.

Let me clarify a couple of things: 

I used marijuana in high school. Lots of it. And alcohol _en masse_. I grew out of marijuana, and stopped drinking when it lost its appeal. 

I continued smoking cigarettes until I got saved, at which point God made it clear that I no longer had that liberty. 

Right now, I could probably (not sure, never tried) go smoke a cigar, drink a beer, and smoke a joint, and not violate my conscience, except for concerns of offending other people's consciences. 

(If, of course, I had any desire to do so...)

So, please don't assume that I'm coming from a strict moralist/legalist mindeset here. 

Right now, my concern is this - are we all looking at the question the same, and has it been properly defined? Your reply made me review my own (second) answer, and I have to admit, I'm still not sure whether I'm answering the original question specifically and fully yet staying strictly within the context within which it was asked. 

To answer your question specifically, no, gov't does not have that right. Someone forgot to inform them, though. 

Gov't has, In my humble opinion, the right to regulate behavior that results in imminent threat to society. That would include driving under the influence of marijuana - but not smoking it per se. 


The *real* question, though.....who are we to question them? Government is concerned with this world. My treasure doesn't lie here. Let government do as it will. Our job is to spread the Gospel.


----------



## Chris

*



but it shouldn't protect us from ourselves.

Click to expand...

*
Amen, amen, amen!


----------



## Michael

Thanks for expanding on your answer, Chris. Quick question for now, when you mention this:



Chris said:


> No, not at all.
> The *real* question, though.....who are we to question them? Government is concerned with this world. My treasure doesn't lie here. Let government do as it will. Our job is to spread the Gospel.



You ask who are we to question them? I could see this being valid if we lived under some kind of monarchy, but do you think the same in our current system of government? Shouldn't we be exactly the ones to question them? 

It's not so much the discussion of marijuana here but it is the principle of this situation that is so interesting.


----------



## Chris

Ezekiel16 said:


> Thanks for expanding on your answer, Chris. Quick question for now, when you mention this:
> 
> 
> 
> You ask who are we to question them? I could see this being valid if we lived under some kind of monarchy, but do you think the same in our current system of government? Shouldn't we be exactly the ones to question them?
> 
> It's not so much the discussion of marijuana here but it is the principle of this situation that is so interesting.




Does the principle in Romans no longer apply when Christians find themselves in a democracy? 

(I'm not asking to draw you in a particular direction - I'm asking because I find the question fascinating. Who am I to waste time fixing a government that will pass as dust one day?)


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Ezekiel16 said:


> Hi Vaughan,
> 
> Hope all is well this morning. I understand the point you are making that both sex and marijuana plants are abused even though they are gifts from God. This issue I am concerned with, however, is that there is a big difference between how legislators have handled the two. It is perfectly legal to have sexual desires or intercourse up to the point where the state deems an act abusive, harmful, or immoral. But this model does not match well with how marijuana plants are handled. I'm not sure of the laws in Australia, but here it would be a criminal offense to simply have one growing on your property. The law criminalizes the plant's existence within a person's posession, far before we even have a chance to discuss abuse, harm, or immorality. This is why I mentioned that the example of sex does not parallel the question.



I think the point I want to make, which is the same as the question Chris asked earlier, was "What is the line between use and abuse of Marijuana?" If usage (is there such a word as "abusage"? there should be...) outside of a medical setting is abuse, then the government's stance on non-medical use is indeed correct.

By the way, I think our Marijuana laws are just as stringent here as they are in the US.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I’d like to offer my view of Genesis 1:29 (& 9:3) as supporting the use, medicinal and other, of the herb cannabis sativa (marijuana). In the Genesis accounts it is explicitly stated that these herbs and plants are for food, for the sustenance of physical life, both for us humans and the lower animals (verse 30).

It is a different use than specified by the LORD, availing ourselves of its psycho-active properties.

How many are aware that in India some Hindus use grass and hashish for transporting themselves into the spirit-world so as to make contact with spirit-entities (demons)? It is because of this property – being an “inter-dimensional gateway” – it is classified as a sorcerous potion, along with other drugs such as peyote, mushrooms, mescaline, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide 25 (LSD) and others.

The Greek word _pharmakon_ generically means drug, and there are three classes of drug: medicine, poison, and sorcerous or magical potion. In Revelation 22:15 and 21:8 the word _sorcerer_ – a derivative of _pharmakon_ – refers to one who enchants through the use of drugs, and in Revelation 18:23 it is the drugs themselves and their effects/actions which are signified. It is precisely the kinds of drugs as grass, mushrooms, LSD, peyote, etc. that are referred to. 

There are many who take the phrase describing Babylon in Rev 18:23, “…for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived” to single out the U.S.A. as that “great city” due to our exporting both the drugs and the drug culture of the sixties (and presently as well) into all the world. I do not know if that is a proper explication of this verse, but such is said of it, and with reason.

I came out of the sixties generation – was one of its poets, who felt it incumbent on myself to be familiar with the drugs my generation used (in my folly) – and am quite familiar with its properties. I think it accurate to say that smoking (or ingesting) grass and hash have the inescapable effect of transporting the user onto “the satanic wavelength”, the realm of spirits and sorcerers, whether one actually traffics with them or not; it is that realm nonetheless.

If a sorcerous potion has the property of alleviating some mental or physical distress, does this warrant its use? This is a case of the remedy being worse than the ailment. Being familiar (past tense) with many drugs, I must say that one of the worst things about grass is its inducing a state of mind/consciousness in which it is almost impossible to pray. One can pray – seek the Lord’s presence – while under the influence of acid or ‘shrooms, and even find His mercy and saving power, but grass is a different story! (Yes, there was a period of being backslidden when I knew these things firsthand, to my shame.)

The medicinal use of cannabis is, to my view, going from the frying pan, not into the fire, but the fires of Hell.

And if the use of grass and the other psychedelics were legalized? (It is commonly recognized that the psychoactive agent in cannabis, THC (Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol), is a potent psychedelic/hallucinogen. Many are the souls who “graduated” from grass to acid, speed, and coke, and from them to the sedatives/narcotics.) I for one would not take them, for the law of God – and by this I mean the torah of Messiah – forbids it: "…the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Rev 21:8

Besides the overtly demonic aspect of using grass, there is another problem area, which I shall just touch upon here, and not deal with at length: the effect of cannabis on the psyche is to _elevate_ the state of consciousness. It is called a “high” because of this effect, raising awareness above the normal. One may have heightened perception, profundity of thought, increased linguistic or artistic skill (though this is disputed), and all this while one’s heart and life-situation are in disorder, turmoil, indeed, even in gross ruin. Getting high on grass may be a means of escape from the reality of one’s genuine state of mind and heart. (It may also be an escape from a physical or nervous ailment, but as I said, _such_ a remedy opens upon a doorway of great darkness.)

Thus, any “spirituality” or “psychic awareness” one may have is in truth delusional. It is a deception. This is part of what sorcery is and does. It is a part of the devil’s array of weapons against the human species.

Just because it exists in the world of nature does not mean it is for human consumption. Would you say hemlock is alright to consume because it exists? Or the hallucinogenic mushrooms of the shaman? We are called to discriminate the harmful from the benign and beneficial.

It – grass – is of a different _class_ than narcotics used for medicinal purposes – it is a psychic energizer which allows the soul of man and the spirits of evil to mingle in the same wavelength. From one who knows all too well, I say, Beware.

Steve


----------



## Magma2

Luke 21:34a Be on guard, that your hearts may not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness . . . .

Eph 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit . . . .

1 Pet 4:4 And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you . . . .

Now, I am not sure at all where or how the NAS got dissipation, but to have one's thoughts "dissipated" was certainly one of the illicit pleasures of marijuana. That's my expert assessment. Unlike the brother above, I wasn't a poet and by the time my generation started imbibing there was no longer any romantic notion that drug use "lead" anywhere or would accomplish anything other than instant gratification. 

Interesting, KJ really has nothing close to the word dissipation and as far as I can tell it's not in the Greek either, although the idea is arguably still present. 

I am quite confident the Gov't doesn't have any role in regulating or outlawing drug use. Certainly nothing that can be inferred from the Constitution so far as I can see.


----------



## Magma2

> One can pray – seek the Lord’s presence – while under the influence of acid or ‘shrooms, and even find His mercy and saving power, but grass is a different story! (Yes, there was a period of being backslidden when I knew these things firsthand, to my shame.)
> 
> . . . One may have heightened perception, profundity of thought, increased linguistic or artistic skill (though this is disputed), and all this while one’s heart and life-situation is in disorder, turmoil, indeed, even in gross ruin. Getting high on grass may be a means of escape from the reality of one’s genuine state of mind and heart. (It may also be an escape from a physical or nervous ailment, but as I said, such a remedy opens upon a doorway of great darkness.)



Some good points and I think there are sufficient biblical reasons for not smoking pot, but many of those same reasons you list would seem to me apply to drunkenness as well. I'm not sure it follows that everyone who smokes grass is engaging in sorcery, although I can certainly see how someone might use it for that purpose. Can't alcohol be used in the same manner and for the same purpose? Doesn't Voodoo practices and other Pagan religions use alcohol this way too?

You also lost me when you said one can pray and seek the presence of the Lord while on 'shrooms or acid!? I would think if there were ever set of drugs that grossly dissipated and distorted one's thoughts it would have been hallucinogens. I can't agree that these drugs are somehow less harmful in this regard than marijuana or alcohol. I would think a person could find the Lord's mercy and saving power anywhere and I don't see why grass would be "a different story"? 

It seems to me the objection to marijuana in the case of prayer, etc., would apply to any mind altering substance from Guinness to Glenfiddich. You can't really pray after a half dozen pints of Guinness and a couple of shots of Glenfiddich either. Of course, one doesn't have to drink to a drunken state in order to properly and legally (both civilly and biblically) enjoy either Guninness or Glenfiddich. I guess the question I have is it possible to consume small amounts of grass without being "stoned?" I confess that while I was once an expert on its use, I was never interested in trying this particular exercise. =

I also think the gateway drug argument is very weak too. in my opinion that is more due to Federal restrictions than anything to do with the drug itself. Those who buy marijuana generally purchase from dealers who sell other illegal mind altering drugs and they have an incentive to widen their markets. Would marijuana still be considered a gateway drug if it was sold along Marlboro and Winston cigarettes or in the beer and wine section of your local grocery store? 

OK, my presidential aspirations are now over.


----------



## Magma2

trevorjohnson said:


> Some of the prophets were stoned, right?.......



No, I think they might have been on 'shrooms or acid.


----------



## crhoades

Magma2 said:


> OK, my presidential aspirations are now over.


 
Like anyone would've voted for a Clarkian... 

I've got waaaaay too many skeletons in my closet as well.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Sean, 

I certainly do not say, or mean to imply, that acid and like psychedelics are less harmful than grass; they are extremely dangerous.

When under the influence of any of the above drugs, one may have the desire to repent of one’s sin in taking them (for any number of reasons, one being finding oneself in great spiritual danger); it is easier to do this on acid than grass; there is something about the latter that debilitates one’s spiritual functioning.

Alcohol and grass are two entirely different drugs; they are not to be likened as to their effects.

Why all this anarchism among Christians? Does not the government have the right to order society, and to legislate against that which threatens the welfare of its citizens? That was the rationale used to justify prohibiting homosexuals from proselytizing and pushing their agenda in the public schools: that lifestyle was against the welfare of society, medically and morally. Paul in Romans 13:1-6 does not have such a view of those given to rule over us. This is why we vote for those who would so rule.

There are weak Christians who, when they hear this lax talk of grass and other drugs, feel justified to indulge in them. “After all, other saints do not disapprove!” Scripture – such as I have referred to in my post above – does not equivocate on this matter. Who has ears to hear, let him hear. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist stedfast in the faith…” 1 Peter 5:8, 9

Steve


----------



## Ravens

This isn't going to be highly thought-out, as I'm leaving for work in about ten minutes. But at least I'll have something to read when I get home.

That being said, I also see Steve's point. I've was very involved in the drug culture prior to becoming saved, and leaving out "body highs" from my list, I partook of marijuana, LSD, psilocybin, ketamine, dextrometorphan, STP, and overdosed once on jimsonweed.

And after salvation it took two years to rebuild my mind to a point of rational functioning (and let's be honest... you've read my posts, there's still probably a lot of work to do.... haha). And, though I wouldn't be able to "explain it", as in, how a drug acting on the body could affect the spirit, and its purely an argument from "experience", I would have to say that psychedelics do open spiritual doors. I firmly believe that I contacted malevolent spirits in some of my world-shattering trips on LSD.

Now, I realize that someone who hasn't taken the drug doubts those claims on the face, simply because they realize its a psychedelic and hallucinogen. The only way I can quickly explain it (and maybe Steve or someone else could chime in...) is that... LSD is like water. Someone who's never swam couldn't really get the idea (nor should they have a desire to in this case). And even though the water might impair your vision... you still know when somethings in the water with you.

Does that make sense Steve? Like, the hallucinogen muddles your mind enough to make any experiences highly doubtful. But after repeated use, you acquire "familiarity" with the environs and effects. And you just kinda know when something Other, unrelated to the drug, is now in your presence. And that happened twice, and was by no means pleasant. It was terrifying. I guess its like being in the water... you can't see, you can't smell, you can't make your senses out... but you would know if 60 feet of fins on a serpentine body brushed up against you. Its not part of the water...

Anyway. Enough psychedelic rambling for the day. It'll take me at least two months to redeem my board credibility.

 



Anyway. Off to work. Take care all, sorry for the scrambled thoughts.


----------



## Magma2

crhoades said:


> Like anyone would've voted for a Clarkian...



Good point. And to think I thought youthful dalliances with drug use was my only problem.


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Alcohol and grass are two entirely different drugs; they are not to be likened as to their effects.



Then it would seem the prohibitive principles against dissipation do not apply to grass and I guess you really have to hang your hat on the word pharmakon. Again, I think this is a weak biblical position. The reason is because you then have to show how every use of marijuana, medicinal or otherwise, is tantamount to using drugs for the purpose of sorcery, etc. I agree grass can be used for that purpose, but I think you painted with too broad of a brush. I noticed too you ignored the use of the inebriating effects of alcohol in the case of Voodoo sorcery and other Pagan rituals for example. 



> Why all this anarchism among Christians? Does not the government have the right to order society, and to legislate against that which threatens the welfare of its citizens?




In the United States the Federal government's powers are supposed to be limited to those areas enumerated by the constitution. If we were still the United States instead of the federal system we're currently (suffering) under, then individual states should be the ones to decide laws as the relate to drug use. 




> That was the rationale used to justify prohibiting homosexuals from proselytizing and pushing their agenda in the public schools: that lifestyle was against the welfare of society, medically and morally.



Conservatives used AIDs as a tool to try and get heterosexuals to abstain from promiscuous sex too even though there has never been any epidemiological reason to assume that AIDs is spread like other STDs. 

The right answer isn't that homosexuals should proselytize, they do anyway, but rather the gov't should get out of the schoolin' business.  



> Paul in Romans 13:1-6 does not have such a view of those given to rule over us. This is why we vote for those who would so rule.



Most people I know, and I admit it's a select group, would probably say the current system we are living under in American was forced upon the states at the end of a gun barrel. 



> There are weak Christians who, when they hear this lax talk of grass and other drugs, feel justified to indulge in them. “After all, other saints do not disapprove!”



I don't think anyone could read my posts and conclude that I approve of the use of grass. I do not. Even if it were legal, which it should be, I don't think people should use it for the reasons I already cited. I don't think people should get drunk either, but alcohol is perfectly legal. I just don't agree that marijuana use is to be -- necessarily -- equated with sorcery and the demonic. I also don't think it's good to try and make the Scriptures say things it doesn't either in order to promote a given end, even if that end might be a good one, as in the case of prohibiting the use of marijuana. 



> Scripture – such as I have referred to in my post above – does not equivocate on this matter. Who has ears to hear, let him hear. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: whom resist stedfast in the faith…” 1 Peter 5:8, 9



Right, but the verse has to do with anything that would dissipate one's thoughts and that would include alcohol which is hardly sinful in moderation. I don't think every use of drugs which people admittedly and routinely abuse is sinful. It's the abuse and the reasons why these things are abused that's sinful. A fellow who works for me is in a situation where his wife is currently dying of cancer. In order to control her pain she takes morphine. She's a wonderful Christian woman (and a good Southern Baptist no less), but I hardly think she's guilty of sin for using morphine. OTOH someone who takes morphine for its euphoric effects and as an escape would readily fall under the prohibition of 1 Peter. 

Now, perhaps grass is one such drug that it cannot be used in moderation without crossing over into sin? I don't know, but (and no offense) you haven't made that case either.


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> When under the influence of any of the above drugs, one may have the desire to repent of one’s sin in taking them (for any number of reasons, one being finding oneself in great spiritual danger); it is easier to do this on acid than grass; there is something about the latter that debilitates one’s spiritual functioning.



I don't think this follows at all. I think the spiritual danger of acid, not to mention what it can do to a person's mind, is far more dangerous. I don't see how the desire to repent is somehow more crippled or debilitated under the influence of grass than acid. I think that is ridiculous. For what it's worth I think you're just trying to universalize your own experience.


----------



## MrMerlin777

ChristopherPaul said:


> I would say no, government should not.
> 
> I for one think it would be overall more beneficial if drugs were legalized and harsher punishments were given for abuses of all freedoms (drunkenness/DWI, rape, etc.).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Sean,

I do not say that “every use of marijuana, medicinal or otherwise, is tantamount to using drugs *for the purpose* of sorcery…” But whether that is the intended purpose or not does not matter – you go through a door you go through a door, whatever your reason. I say the motive is negligible; and you may not even be aware of the realm you are in; you may think you’re just in a fun mildly euphoric state, akin to mild alcohol intoxication. But you are on that wavelength. And there will be a toll.

I don’t ignore your remark on the use of alcohol in occult rituals. In itself it is not in the class of psychoactives and thus not comparable.

In terms of psychopharmacology the properties of the THC in cannabis sativa put it on a level with the other psychedelics and their properties. Whatever the motives are for using it, I repeat, they do not negate the effect of the chemicals on the human system. And thus, it (grass) is equivalent to the other drugs classified under sorcery. You may deny it all you want, but the psychopharmacological effects (not necessarily in the perception of the one taking it) contradict your denial.

Why even bring up the case of medical morphine use? It is not comparable.

You are aware that many psychiatrists routinely used LSD as a therapeutic tool, and that they said it was not harmful when used wisely and under medical supervision? The damage was done to their patients despite their caveat.

Unless you are *absolutely* certain that marijuana is not in the class of sorcerous drugs, you do ill telling others it is not, for you pave the way to their committing grievous sin, and endanger their souls. Perhaps you do not have a pastoral care for them, and this is just an exercise in exploring/defending “Christian liberty” to you, but your view works evil – yes, though I know you do not intend it – and I do have a pastoral care, and I know the fruit of your teaching.

You may say you think I am “universalizing my experience,” but unless you have at least undergone these experiences you are at best theorizing upon something you have no knowledge of. Of course it is possible I am, but I think not.

But if you are a “Clarkian” and aligned with John Robbins, then you must have somewhat on the ball!

On that happy note let me say goodnight, for in this part of the world it is late.

Steve

P.S. If drugs were legalized (and it may happen) then sorcery would be the norm, and this society would witness open occult warfare. It would be horrible, just as the sixties dream turned into a psychedelic nightmare. Charlie Mansons would be common, and Hell would manifest in the world in great power.

You folks know not what you speak of.


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> But if you are a “Clarkian” and aligned with John Robbins, then you must have somewhat on the ball!



One of the first genuinely nice things anyone has ever said about Dr. Robbins on these boards. Took the winds right out of my sails.  



> P.S. If drugs were legalized (and it may happen) then sorcery would be the norm, and this society would witness open occult warfare. It would be horrible, just as the sixties dream turned into a psychedelic nightmare. Charlie Mansons would be common, and Hell would manifest in the world in great power.
> 
> You folks know not what you speak of.



Sounds like the current status quo to me, except with less crowded prisons.


----------



## Theoretical

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sean,
> 
> I do not say that “every use of marijuana, medicinal or otherwise, is tantamount to using drugs *for the purpose* of sorcery…” But whether that is the intended purpose or not does not matter – you go through a door you go through a door, whatever your reason. I say the motive is negligible; and you may not even be aware of the realm you are in; you may think you’re just in a fun mildly euphoric state, akin to mild alcohol intoxication. But you are on that wavelength. And there will be a toll.
> 
> I don’t ignore your remark on the use of alcohol in occult rituals. In itself it is not in the class of psychoactives and thus not comparable.
> 
> In terms of psychopharmacology the properties of the THC in cannabis sativa put it on a level with the other psychedelics and their properties. Whatever the motives are for using it, I repeat, they do not negate the effect of the chemicals on the human system. And thus, it (grass) is equivalent to the other drugs classified under sorcery. You may deny it all you want, but the psychopharmacological effects (not necessarily in the perception of the one taking it) contradict your denial.
> 
> Why even bring up the case of medical morphine use? It is not comparable.
> 
> You are aware that many psychiatrists routinely used LSD as a therapeutic tool, and that they said it was not harmful when used wisely and under medical supervision? The damage was done to their patients despite their caveat.
> 
> Unless you are *absolutely* certain that marijuana is not in the class of sorcerous drugs, you do ill telling others it is not, for you pave the way to their committing grievous sin, and endanger their souls. Perhaps you do not have a pastoral care for them, and this is just an exercise in exploring/defending “Christian liberty” to you, but your view works evil – yes, though I know you do not intend it – and I do have a pastoral care, and I know the fruit of your teaching.
> 
> You may say you think I am “universalizing my experience,” but unless you have at least undergone these experiences you are at best theorizing upon something you have no knowledge of. Of course it is possible I am, but I think not.
> 
> But if you are a “Clarkian” and aligned with John Robbins, then you must have somewhat on the ball!
> 
> On that happy note let me say goodnight, for in this part of the world it is late.
> 
> Steve
> 
> P.S. If drugs were legalized (and it may happen) then sorcery would be the norm, and this society would witness open occult warfare. It would be horrible, just as the sixties dream turned into a psychedelic nightmare. Charlie Mansons would be common, and Hell would manifest in the world in great power.
> 
> You folks know not what you speak of.


This has gotten to be a very interesting discussion.

I may just re-evaluate my stance on drugs and the state from some of this conversation. The specific spiritual issues of psychedelics is an interesting angle of attack. It's at least somewhat persuasive in terms of restriction from a Christian political perspective. I'll have to chew on this issue some more


----------



## Formerly At Enmity

Sorry...can't reply at this time...I'm listening to the 47 minute version of Darkstar recorded in Toledo, OH in '78.....Will get back with you all later


----------



## Ravens

I would have to be sleepy, soaring, or very relaxed and laid back to really get into Dark Star, as anathema as that is. 99% of the time I'd rather have a good Scarlet Fire, China Rider, or Eyes of the World.


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Andrew,
> 
> Having read the threads you have provided, I must say that I have lived a sheltered life compared to many here at the PB.



Brother Ivan, you hold up one side of the shelter and I'll hold up the other. Anyone who cares to join us is welcome.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Ezekiel16 said:


> Hi Ivan!
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> 
> I also read the links provided. I was hoping to discuss, though, not so much the opinions on medical marijuana or the dangers of intoxication, but more the flat out appropriateness (or dare I say sinfulness) of prohibition in light of God's Word. From reading your links I believe I know where you stand.
> 
> Maybe someone else has an opinion though. Is there a solid argument in support of a magistrate criminalizing God's provision?



You are going around the issue of why it is banned. 

Most importantly, intoxication is unbiblical. How many times in the bible does Paul tell us to "be alert"? Can you be alert on theological issues while high? Can you dodge the flaming arrows of satan while high?


----------



## turmeric

Dark Star!!

I have to second what JD Wiseman & Steve say about psychedelics, both from experience and from reading up on them. The ancient Greeks (from whom we get the word pharmakeia,) used ergot grown on a specific grass which grew at Eleusis (near Athens) in order to celebrate the Eleusinian mysteries. It was definitely a "gateway" drug in the sense Steve was referring to. I began my study of ancient Greek religion because of the desire to use these substances for spiritual purposes. God sovereignly intervened in my use of these things, (I was actually making a pretty powerful concoction of marijuana butter) to reach me and draw me to Christ, however I don't recomend them for that purpose. Medicinal marijuana seems alright where it's deemed legal.


----------



## Ivan

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Brother Ivan, you hold up one side of the shelter and I'll hold up the other. Anyone who cares to join us is welcome.



Will do, Brother Bill, will do!


----------



## Ravens

I know that the two of you aren't viewing being "sheltered" as a bad thing, but it made me think of something: I think one of the worst things to happen in modern evangelicalism has been the glorification of pre-conversion sinfulness. If you were just a "normal" kid, you shouldn't share with the youth group; if you had a drug history and a dabble of witchcraft, even better; and if you also had a questionable orientation and burned down some churches, then you're on a path to testimony super stardom.

I know its not prevalent in Reformed churches, but it certainly is in wider evangelicalism. I was always told to share my story alot, but nowadays people don't even know about my past unless it comes up somehow.

I wish evangelicalism would instead tell people that the shelter of Christ is a good thing; being out in the cold, rain, and snow just leaves you wet, sick, or both.


----------



## Magma2

turmeric said:


> I have to second what JD Wiseman & Steve say about psychedelics, both from experience and from reading up on them. The ancient Greeks (from whom we get the word pharmakeia,) used ergot grown on a specific grass which grew at Eleusis (near Athens) in order to celebrate the Eleusinian mysteries. It was definitely a "gateway" drug in the sense Steve was referring to. I began my study of ancient Greek religion because of the desire to use these substances for spiritual purposes. God sovereignly intervened in my use of these things, (I was actually making a pretty powerful concoction of marijuana butter) to reach me and draw me to Christ, however I don't recomend them for that purpose. Medicinal marijuana seems alright where it's deemed legal.



Main Entry: er·got
Pronunciation: '&r-g&t, -"gät
Function: noun
Etymology: French, literally, ****'s spur
1 : the black or dark purple sclerotium of fungi (genus Claviceps) that occurs as a club-shaped body replacing the seed of a grass (as rye); also : a fungus bearing ergots
2 : a disease of rye and other cereals caused by an ergot fungus
3 a : the dried sclerotia of an ergot fungus grown on rye and containing several alkaloids (as ergonovine and ergotamine) b : any of such alkaloids used medicinally for their contractile effect on smooth muscle (as of the uterus and or blood vessels) 

Never heard of Ergot, so I thought I'd post the definition. Again, I think it is a matter of eisegesis to suggest that the use of marijuana -- in every case -- is equatable with sorcery. I still insist that its use generally falls under all biblical prohibitions against dissipation, whether from alcohol or any other substance used for that purpose. As in a court of law I think intent matters (see Ergot above) and your buttery spread was for a purpose only a Rastafarian could appreciate. It was your desire that put you at odds with the truth and not the drug per se. Thankfully you say God intervened, but was that before or after buttering and ingesting your toast? I'm just wondering, because Steve was pretty insistent that God cannot intervene when under the influence of marijuana. 

I also don't agree that legalization will usher in unprecedented demonic warfare, etc., etc. That's pure hysterics and reminds me of Conservatives who use AIDs as a means to promote abstinence as if HIV was another STD. There are plenty of good biblical reasons for a heterosexual not to engage in premarital sex and AIDs isn't one of them. For what it's worth and if you talk to any kid in a public High School, marijuana is defacto legal now as it was a long time ago when I was in High School (and then the drinking age was only 18). Prohibition is not the answer to the drug problem (or any intemperance problem as the 1920's should have taught us). The preaching of the gospel is -- and that is NOT to include that putrid, anemic Arminian version.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

“de facto legal” & “de facto moral” are the way those of the world – the lawless – justify themselves when they violate “the ordinance of man” (1 Peter 2:13 ff.) and God, or sanction others doing so.

What has this church-based lawlessness to do with Biblical holiness?

Sean, have you shared your views on drugs with the pastor, and with the youth pastor or leader of your church? Or are you flying “stealth”? You’re _their_ headache.

Can’t continue this conversation, am off to Nairobi and from there north to the Sudanese border this evening, to teach Sudanese church leaders for a brief period. See y’all when I get back – or sooner if I have time and a computer connection.

Steve


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> “de facto legal” & “de facto moral” are the way those of the world – the lawless – justify themselves when they violate “the ordinance of man” (1 Peter 2:13 ff.) and God, or sanction others doing so.



Non sequitur and another great example of why your argument fails and consists more in pious sounding rhetoric than biblical substance. Legality and morality are not equivalent concepts. There are thousands of examples that disprove your point. It is perfectly legal in most countries for women to kill their children provided the critters still reside in their wombs, yet abortion is anything but moral. More to the point, sorcery and all forms of witchcraft are perfectly legal right now in America and protected by the First Amendment, but, again, hardly moral. I do not sanction drug use. I just don't think it should be illegal.



> What has this church-based lawlessness to do with Biblical holiness?



Church-based lawlessness? Hardly. What it has to do with is the proper role of gov't, which is not to protect people from themselves. The role of gov't is to punish actual crimes and not to try and control people in an attempt to stop potential crimes from occurring. Since you say you admire John Robbins, I recommend you pick up his latest book, Freedom and Capitalism. Oh, and FYI, I spoke to John and he's in favor of drug decriminalization for many of the reasons I've already discussed. 



> Sean, have you shared your views on drugs with the pastor, and with the youth pastor or leader of your church? Or are you flying “stealth”? You’re _their_ headache.



No, I haven't because they haven't asked. If you think they need to be informed of what you call my "church-based lawlessness," I'd be happy to give you their number so you can tell them yourself. I'd be happy to share my views with them as I am with you.  I'd love to discuss my view of the proper and biblical role of gov't and my belief that drug prohibition is a colossal failure for the same reasons Prohibition in the Twenties was a colossal failure. I'd love to tell them why I do not think more draconian drug laws and authoritarian gov't, two things which you seem to prefer, are sound biblical answers to the drug problem. 

Finally, I would be happy to tell them that I do not believe that decriminalization of drugs would make sorcery the norm, Charlie Mansons common, usher in unprecedented occult warfare, and make Hell any more manifest in the world than it already is. Since it would free up considerable and much needed prison space and eliminate much of the gang and drug related violence already occurring due to prohibition, I'll tell them I think decriminalization will be a positive blessing.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Magma2 said:


> Non sequitur and another great example of why your argument fails and consists more in pious sounding rhetoric than biblical substance. Legality and morality are not equivalent concepts. There are thousands of examples that disprove your point. It is perfectly legal in most countries for women to kill their children provided the critters still reside in their wombs, yet abortion is anything but moral. More to the point, sorcery and all forms of witchcraft are perfectly legal right now in America and protected by the First Amendment, but, again, hardly moral. I do not sanction drug use. I just don't think it should be illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Church-based lawlessness? Hardly. What it has to do with is the proper role of gov't, which is not to protect people from themselves. The role of gov't is to punish actual crimes and not to try and control people in an attempt to stop potential crimes from occurring. Since you say you admire John Robbins, I recommend you pick up his latest book, Freedom and Capitalism. Oh, and FYI, I spoke to John and he's in favor of drug decriminalization for many of the reasons I've already discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I haven't because they haven't asked. If you think they need to be informed of what you call my "church-based lawlessness," I'd be happy to give you their number so you can tell them yourself. I'd be happy to share my views with them as I am with you.  I'd love to discuss my view of the proper and biblical role of gov't and my belief that drug prohibition is a colossal failure for the same reasons Prohibition in the Twenties was a colossal failure. I'd love to tell them why I do not think more draconian drug laws and authoritarian gov't, two things which you seem to prefer, are sound biblical answers to the drug problem.
> 
> Finally, I would be happy to tell them that I do not believe that decriminalization of drugs would make sorcery the norm, Charlie Mansons common, usher in unprecedented occult warfare, and make Hell any more manifest in the world than it already is. Since it would free up considerable and much needed prison space and eliminate much of the gang and drug related violence already occurring due to prohibition, I'll tell them I think decriminalization will be a positive blessing.



Positive blessing? It sounds to me like you are looking for a quick legal toke. You still haven't answered my question. Being alert is a biblical command, and you are avoiding the issue. Paul commands us in many places to not only be alert but to be sober. In order to battle fortresses that are within the church or dodging the flaming arrows of satan, you must be sober minded. Can you be sober minded while high? You are looking for a direct command to not toke on the dope. Look what scripture says about your mind. It's plain and clear.


----------



## Magma2

Andrew P.C. said:


> Positive blessing? It sounds to me like you are looking for a quick legal toke.



Well, then, I suspect you haven't really understood a word I've written. The positive blessing is that ending drug prohibition would eliminate much of the gang related violence and similar societal corruptions that relate to this ongoing and futile "war against drugs." The answer to the drug problem is not more laws, or even the existing laws, it's the return to the clear preaching of the Gospel. Something almost unheard of in this country, despite all the religiosity on TV, radio and in books. The biblical faith is an anachronism and instead we have hucksters and Jeeebus hawkers fleecing suckers by the thousands. Similarly, I've argued the biblical role of gov't isn't to protect us from ourselves, and, besides, these laws have not worked and anyone who thinks they have has his head buried. 



> You still haven't answered my question. Being alert is a biblical command, and you are avoiding the issue.



I didn't know it was a question and besides you're wrong since I most wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. I just don't agree that the prohibition of drugs is a legitimate role of government.



> Paul commands us in many places to not only be alert but to be sober. In order to battle fortresses that are within the church or dodging the flaming arrows of satan, you must be sober minded. Can you be sober minded while high? You are looking for a direct command to not toke on the dope. Look what scripture says about your mind. It's plain and clear.



Again, you clearly have not understood me at all. I agree that commands against dissipation and, conversely, commands to be alert apply to the use of any substance, not just illegal ones. The point that was under discussion is that Steve doesn't agree and instead argues that drug use, particularly marijuana use, is to engage in sorcery and universally falls under these biblical prohibitions. Go back and read his posts. Read mine again too since you clearly did not understand them.

I realize that the lazy argument is that anyone who is for legalization is also in favor of a legal toke, but like much of Steve's argument, this too doesn't follow. 

What I do not agree with is that ending prohibition will unleash hell on earth and that all drug use, specifically marijuana use, necessarily entails sorcery. It certainly may at times (Meg Thomas made this point above), but it also may not. Steve says I'm guilty of great evil if I don't agree with him on this point. This is Steve's argument in a nutshell and I've argued that his assertions are the result of an invalid inference from Scripture and his attempt to universalize his own subjective experience. If his argument is valid, he certainly hasn't demonstrated it, that is all.

For what it's worth, I smoked marijuana and it was never in any occult attempt to attain knowledge or a higher state of being or for any other stupid Sixties-Hippy myth. I and the people I knew smoked pot to get stoned. Period. My guess is that this is the case today as well and Meg's and Steve's experience, while at one time perhaps the norm, is the exception today. 

In short, his view is not a necessary inference from Scripture, whereas yours is.


----------



## crhoades

Someone remind me to buy stock in Waffle House if a bill goes before Congress to legalize mary jane...


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Magma2 said:


> I agree that commands against dissipation and, conversely, commands to be alert apply to the use of any substance, not just illegal ones.



But isn't it a contradiction then to say, "Legalize it!" and disagree with it?




Magma2 said:


> What I do not agree with is that ending prohibition will *unleash hell on earth *and that all drug use, specifically marijuana use, *necessarily entails sorcery*.




That's a bunch of non-sense hokie pokie.


----------



## Magma2

Andrew P.C. said:


> But isn't it a contradiction then to say, "Legalize it!" and disagree with it?



Not at all. I disagree with a lot of things which are perfectly legal. I suppose that's the price of freedom. Of course, elect me dictator and I'll fix all that.  



> That's a bunch of non-sense hokie pokie.



I couldn't agree more, but I suppose you're flying stealth too.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Magma2 said:


> I couldn't agree more, but I suppose you're flying stealth too.




Stealth? LOL. Umm.... if you call a good beat down stealth.

 

WOOOOHOOOOO! DOWN EVIL DRUGS! DOWN!


----------



## Simply_Nikki

Andrew P.C. said:


> But isn't it a contradiction then to say, "Legalize it!" and disagree with it?


 


Magma2 said:


> Not at all. I disagree with a lot of things which are perfectly legal. I suppose that's the price of freedom. Of course, elect me dictator and I'll fix all that.


 
Hmm.. I do see Andrew's point. I agree that a christian should not ardently push to legalize something in which he knows contradicts the word of God; for example, I'm not going to toss my vote in for Gay Marriage even if this country decides that Gay people should have the right to be recognized as married. At the same time I understand your point as well Sean; however, I think it's a bit dangerous. In a sense not speaking out against something that is immoral (in terms of abstaining from voting against it) could be portrayed as your condonement of it. But at the same time, given the country we do live in and the role this particular form of government plays in the lives of its citizens, perhaps abstaining from voting against the issue while at the same time condemning the immorality of the particular issue is the best option.I'm not sure if that made sense, but those are my  from a political theory major. A little bit of J.S Mill's "On Liberty" is came to mind as I thought of this.


----------



## crhoades

It comes down to differentiating between sins and crimes. What does the government have the right to do? They should legislate against what God considers crimes and then enforce penalties for breaking the law with blind justice. The problem is they've crossed over and become the morality police dictating what people can say and everything else. We all agree that for children to speak dissrestful to their parents is sin and a violation of the 5th commandment. Should govenment pass a law that punishes the child? If not why not? It is an overstepping of their jurisdiction/sphere into the sphere of the family and indirectly the church. Now what if the government had already overstepped that boundary and legislated against backtalking. Would asking the government to repeal that law mean that a person condones disrespectful kids and that a mass uprising of rebellious youths (thinking Skid Row - Youth Gone Wild...) swarm the land killing all parents? No. Families and churches would have to do their responsibility of nurture and discipline. I think that is what Sean is arguing for. Drugs bad. Government overstepping boundaries bad. Don't correct one bad thing with another.


----------



## gwine

JDWiseman said:


> Anyway. Off to work. Take care all, sorry for the scrambled thoughts.


For just one fleeting second I asked myself, "why are his thoughts scrambled?"

Just for a second.


----------



## Ravens

.


----------



## Magma2

crhoades said:


> Drugs bad. Government overstepping boundaries bad. Don't correct one bad thing with another.



Very close. Drugs bad. Gov't overstepping boundaries exceedingly worse.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Sean,

I'm in a primitive place for the time being, but at some point I would like to see the Robbins' book you mentioned, _Freedom and Capitalism_. I am not much into political science, but I have much respect for this man. It does pay, I will admit, to be aware of the political situations we are in. It is highly edifying to be aware of the Christian roots of this land, and the support given the Christian faith by the early fathers, the government, and even the Supreme Court. I have made a study of the early constitutional views of the Faith, which is quite a contrast to the revisionist history being foisted upon us at present. As I said, I am interested in Robbins' view, for the man is right on on many things.

I won't seek to rebutt what you have said, as I have made my point fairly clearly and folks can choose for themselves. No sense in playing verbal ping-pong at this juncture in the discussion.

I am not a "rat" to inform anyone about your views, nor a member of the Thought Police; the "free market-place of ideas" and freedom of speech are valuable aspects of this country and its intellectual life.

I am sort of surprised to see so much anti-Federal gov't thought here at PB, which doesn't mean (in my mind) it is bad; it may just be that I am ignorant of some things (no doubt many things!). One example is the head-covering thread; I had not seen a cogent Biblical defense of it till I perused the posts on it. Now I have to ask the Lord for wisdom to see if this is something I must learn more of with a view to holding to it.

Which is not to say I will change my view of sorcery. If my exegesis of the Biblical material is sound, and my application of it to what we have been considering is pertinent, then it is not properly "my" view but God's. Are not the officers He has appointed to watch over the church _mandated_ to discern and decide on such matters, for the safety of His flock? I have rendered my opinion, which I know is widely supported by others given to discern and rule. I _am_ interested in other pastors'/elders' judgments on this matter, interacting with both the text and its modern application, to see what they think.

It really has no bearing -- or a different bearing, at any rate -- what the Federal gov't has to say about it. Citizens may vote for those who represent their views, as is the way in the U.S. In terms of the Kingdom of God and _its_ government the stakes are much higher, arriving at the correct disposition of this problem.

To choose wrongly is to open a door the Lord wants closed, to open a veritable Pandora's Box.

It is given to the _ministerium_ (in the sense Calvin would use the term), per Matthew 16:19 (& Matthew 18:18), to decide this issue, as those appointed to wisely rule.

I am open to fresh exegesis, and fresh scrutiny of the relevant sciences dealing with marijuana use, as well as pertinent experiential data (which is not to be despised, Sean), in a revisiting of this legal matter (legal as per the law of God's judgment on it).

Your views of the Federal gov't of the U.S. and _its_ relation to this issue are interesting to me, as I admit I may have ignorance in this area.

A final question: given what we know -- or some may know -- of the tremendous impact the drug culture of the sixties and seventies had on not only our culture but the cultures of the entire world -- i.e., a remarkable new awareness with exponential growth -- can we be oblivious to the fact of a _new_ but like phenomenon impacting world consciousness, this time not with the "groovy" or "spiritual" psychedelic awareness, but something deeper, something within the "Pandora's Box" of sorcery _longing_ to break free and have no reins on it at all within the collective mind of humanity at large, were such drugs to be legalized?

One does not have to be a visionary to see the effect of legalized drugs on a culture's consciousness. What is it that is "taken out of the way" preventing the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thess 2:7)? Is it the Spirit of Christ operating beneficially through the [governmental] "powers that...are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1)? Is not the rule of law, the wicked as well as the benign, the civil "ordinance of God" (13:2)?

Can it be that in such a topic as this we are given to peer into the very dynamics of this "mystery of iniquity" and what holds it back for the time?

On another note, Kenya is not _too_ hot at the moment, only in the 90s. The (mostly Sudanese) men here, receiving training in theology and Biblical studies, are a delight to teach and interact with. The local Kenyan tribe, the Turkana, are a challenge to present the gospel to in such a way that they can comprehend it. I have a very good (& winsome) translator/indigenous evangelist to help in preaching to and teaching them. There are some Reformed Church men from the Kissi people (Kenyans) who are knowledgable in the Scripture and doctrine, and the men from the Sudan are from the Presbyterian Church of Sudan (PCOS). It is a joy to be here.

I may not be able to participate in much discussion, as the shedule is very tight for the next two weeks, Sunday afternoons being an exception.

Interesting talking with you, Sean. I hope I have not offended you with my sometimes sharp remarks.

Steve


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I am sort of surprised to see so much anti-Federal gov't thought here at PB, which doesn't mean (in my mind) it is bad; it may just be that I am ignorant of some things (no doubt many things!). One example is the head-covering thread; I had not seen a cogent Biblical defense of it till I perused the posts on it. Now I have to ask the Lord for wisdom to see if this is something I must learn more of with a view to holding to it.



While you're asking the Lord for wisdom, check out Gordon Clark's commentary on First Corinthians pgs 175ff. The argument for head coverings falls on exegetical grounds, and, in my view, hangs on the translation of toiauten. KJ had it right "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." For another thread I suppose.

Also, I don't think by calling my session you would be "ratting" me out. I never thought I was hiding anything until you accused me of "flying stealth."  



> Which is not to say I will change my view of sorcery. If my exegesis of the Biblical material is sound, and my application of it to what we have been considering is pertinent, then it is not properly "my" view but God's.



Your view is pertinent and relevant in cases such as your own, Meg Thomas' and others. Tim Leary also comes to mind. My objection is that your pertinent point cannot be universalized (you can't make a "some" and "all") and one of the implications of your position, which I disagree with, is the continuation and expansion of government's so-called and failed "war on drugs." I just believe the biblical role of gov't is a very limited one. As John Robbins writes; "Biblical law follows the principle of punishing wrongdoers rather than trying to regulate everyone in the hope of preventing wrongdoing." 




> Are not the officers He has appointed to watch over the church _mandated_ to discern and decide on such matters, for the safety of His flock? I have rendered my opinion, which I know is widely supported by others given to discern and rule. I _am_ interested in other pastors'/elders' judgments on this matter, interacting with both the text and its modern application, to see what they think.



I don't see that pastors'/elders' have any special gift of interpretation that places even one of their arguments or opinions above criticism and examination by anyone in light of Scripture. If your position is sound you should be able to deduce it clearly from Scripture alone. So far you'll note that your conclusions are drawn from a combination of Scripture dealing with sorcery and your personal experience with drugs and marijuana in particular and no one is obligated to submit to conclusions drawn from personal experience, even the experience of an elder/pastor. 



> It really has no bearing -- or a different bearing, at any rate -- what the Federal gov't has to say about it. Citizens may vote for those who represent their views, as is the way in the U.S. In terms of the Kingdom of God and _its_ government the stakes are much higher, arriving at the correct disposition of this problem.



Which is why prohibitions and commands against drunkenness or dissipation suffice to govern those in the Kingdom.



> I am open to fresh exegesis, and fresh scrutiny of the relevant sciences dealing with marijuana use, as well as pertinent experiential data (which is not to be despised, Sean), in a revisiting of this legal matter (legal as per the law of God's judgment on it).



Experiential data is not to be despised, but it should never be confused with the truth and it must never be raised to the level of God's Word. 



> A final question: given what we know -- or some may know -- of the tremendous impact the drug culture of the sixties and seventies had on not only our culture but the cultures of the entire world -- i.e., a remarkable new awareness with exponential growth -- can we be oblivious to the fact of a _new_ but like phenomenon impacting world consciousness, this time not with the "groovy" or "spiritual" psychedelic awareness, but something deeper, something within the "Pandora's Box" of sorcery _longing_ to break free and have no reins on it at all within the collective mind of humanity at large, were such drugs to be legalized?



Again, I don't know what it's like where you live, but where I live drugs are as readily available and as accessible as any time in history and their use is even more widespread than prior to 1914 when they could be purchased legally. The spiritual and moral shape of this country is horrible, but I can hardly blame it all on drug use. I'm more inclined to blame it on the churches who have pretty much abandoned the faith once delivered to the saints and instead preach Arminian pablum in place of the gospel. I will even grant that things might even be worse for a time if drugs were legalized, perhaps a large number of addicts will overdose and die eliminating at least some of the drug problem, but the dangers of your Pandora's Box is not something you've inferred from Scripture alone. 



> One does not have to be a visionary to see the effect of legalized drugs on a culture's consciousness.



And one certainly doesn't have to be a visionary to see what the effects of prohibition have been and how its been used as a pretext to eliminate many of our remaining freedoms. Of course, the perpetual and endless imagined "war on terror" will probably be sufficient to eliminate any remaining constitutional restraints on gov't. 



> Interesting talking with you, Sean. I hope I have not offended you with my sometimes sharp remarks.



I'm not easily offended. Nice to talk with you too Steve. It's been fun.  I never thought I'd be in a position of arguing for decriminalization of drugs on, of all places, the Puritan Boards.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Continuing the conversation:

Steve: Which is not to say I will change my view of sorcery. If my exegesis of the Biblical material is sound, and my application of it to what we have been considering is pertinent, then it is not properly "my" view but God's.​​​Sean: Your view is pertinent and relevant in cases such as your own, Meg Thomas' and others. Tim Leary also comes to mind. My objection is that your pertinent point cannot be universalized (you can't make a "some" and "all") and one of the implications of your position, which I disagree with, is the continuation and expansion of government's so-called and failed "war on drugs." I just believe the biblical role of gov't is a very limited one. As John Robbins writes; "Biblical law follows the principle of punishing wrongdoers rather than trying to regulate everyone in the hope of preventing wrongdoing."​But if my point in based upon empirically verifiable grounds – data – then it may indeed have universal application and relevance. 

For you to limit my observations and the implications of them to only “such cases as your own…[and a few others]” is very much akin to the postmodernist relativizing of truth to the merely “it is true only for you.”

And your position is based upon what? _Your_ opinion/experience of the effects of marijuana on the human system, and particularly its consciousness? Completely apart from the government angle – which is a different matter entirely – I do not see your view supported by either any relevant cultural studies or any scientific data, and by this latter I refer to psychopharmacological findings (mentioned above) or clinical observation of persons under the influence.

I did not see you refute my contention that due to its varied cultural applications and it pharmacological properties it cannot be excluded from the classic Biblical definition of a sorcerous potion (smokes are included in that category, as we know from crack and angel dust / PCP). I say “forget gov’t issues” for the moment as they but cloud this primary consideration; both your and my thoughts on this are beside the primary point.

You deny it is sorcery/a sorcerous potion; and on what basis? Because it did not seem like that to you? Because it was just a mild intoxicant/euphoriant _to you_? Talk about universalizing an experience! And if high school kids take it (it being “de facto legal” to them) just to get “stoned” and without any “sorcerous intent,” _this_ is the basis for your judgment that it is not intrinsically a sorcerous substance? Is this the extent of the data you produce to support your view?

I said it once, and will repeat, that one aspect of sorcery is deception, both self-deception and the deceiving of others. May not your view that it is equivalent in its effects to alcohol – and thus morally equivalent to it – be the result of deception? This is what I meant when I said it is “de facto moral” to some: they see nothing wrong with it, there being no moral prohibition concerning it they are aware of.

Your experience – and that of some others – is not sufficient grounds to overturn a plethora of data to the contrary. Merely wishful thinking, or positing it as an unsubstantiated truth-claim certainly will not do it.

You have said,

I don't see that pastors'/elders' have any special gift of interpretation that places even one of their arguments or opinions above criticism and examination by anyone in light of Scripture. If your position is sound you should be able to deduce it clearly from Scripture alone. So far you'll note that your conclusions are drawn from a combination of Scripture dealing with sorcery and your personal experience with drugs and marijuana in particular and no one is obligated to submit to conclusions drawn from personal experience, even the experience of an elder/pastor.​​​You are right in that we must examine pastors’ & elders’ views in the light of Scripture to see if they are sound. Now when you say we must be able to deduce clearly any position from Scripture alone, you omit the need to _also_ rightly assess their proper application by an astute awareness of the situations these positions are to be applied to. The nature, chemically and psychopharmacologically, of the substance in question, is indeed a relevant area of inquiry. If this evidence supports grass being placed within the category of Biblically prohibited substances, then it is a case of “Scripture alone” judging something that falls within its purview.

You will note that my argumentation is quite apart from any personal experience, but is an exegetical issue, and a scientific one, with cultural corroboration (such as the use of the substance – due to its intrinsic properties – for shamanistic and occult purposes). Having said this latter remark, let me restate an earlier caveat: that it sometimes is not used for such purposes, nor is any occult or sorcerous activity experienced by some users, does not negate the fact that it is sorcerous; it only goes to show that its essential nature is disguised at times, due to its deceptive qualities.

I belabor this issue because of its importance. And let me state, were you in my church, I would, along with the other elder and the pastor, gently request / order you not to make your views known, as they are – in the unanimous view of the eldership – in defiance of clear Biblical teaching, and would be subversive of the peace and purity of the church, to which, as a member, you are committed to strive for and uphold. Failure to comply would result in the beginning of disciplinary proceedings. The Scriptural prohibitions against sorcerery are to be taken most seriously.

There is no other Reformed church in my city, and only one other in the country. I do not think you would be happy in the Charismatic or Arminian assemblies nearby.

Do you think me wrong in my stand as an elder, Sean? I am interested to dialogue with you on this.

Steve


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> [/COLOR][/INDENT]But if my point in based upon empirically verifiable grounds – data – then it may indeed have universal application and relevance.


 
 
What makes your "empirically verifiable grounds" more universally applicable or justifiable than the ones I've provided? Because you say so? Because you're an elder and I'm not? I've already told you that in my experience the people I knew, including myself, did not smoke pot for any reason that can be associated with sorcery. We smoked pot because we liked the way it made us feel and we liked to get stoned. I enjoyed the dissipating effects of it all as did my friends. Admittedly, my experience isn't yours or Meg's, but so what? 

The problem which you seem to consistently miss is that your argument, while of some value, does not rest on exegesis from Scripture ALONE, but relies, and quite heavily I might add, on your own so-called "empirically verifiable grounds." Further, if you would go back and read Gordon Clark and one of his most accomplished students, John Robbins, you will realize that there is no such thing as "empirically verifiable grounds" and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all. More importantly, the combination of Scripture and conclusions drawn from "empirically verifiable grounds" together can never yield more truth. In your zeal against any and all drug use you've gone off the "sola scriptura" plantation. 



> For you to limit my observations and the implications of them to only “such cases as your own…[and a few others]” is very much akin to the postmodernist relativizing of truth to the merely “it is true only for you.”



Well then your argument is very much akin to eisigesis. No, it is eisigesis. I would limit your observations along with their implications to every case where marijuana or any other drug is used in sorcery. 




> And your position is based upon what? _Your_ opinion/experience of the effects of marijuana on the human system, and particularly its consciousness? Completely apart from the government angle – which is a different matter entirely – I do not see your view supported by either any relevant cultural studies or any scientific data, and by this latter I refer to psychopharmacological findings (mentioned above) or clinical observation of persons under the influence.



My position is based on Scripture alone and the commands against drunkenness which apply to other substances as well. 

You are greatly mistaken if you think science and the collection of "scientific data" is a means by which we can arrive at the truth of any conclusion. You should read or at least reread Clark's "The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God." 



> I did not see you refute my contention that due to its varied cultural applications and it pharmacological properties it cannot be excluded from the classic Biblical definition of a sorcerous potion



What's there to refute? I agree that marijuana can and has been used in sorcery. You and Meg have shown that it can and I have not disputed this point at all. Of course, potions are normally something you drink, but I'll let that slide. Meg at least was making butter. OTOH, you made it clear that God could not intervene if someone was under the influence of marijuana and I don't buy that either. 



> You deny it is sorcery/a sorcerous potion; and on what basis? Because it did not seem like that to you? Because it was just a mild intoxicant/euphoriant _to you_? Talk about universalizing an experience!



Again, you miss the point. I don't have to universalize my experience. There are already universal propositions and commands in Scripture against intemperance and dissipation. However, I would think my experience disproves yours and and specifically your attempt at universalizing your experience and then applying it to Scripture. 



> And if high school kids take it (it being “de facto legal” to them) just to get “stoned” and without any “sorcerous intent,” _this_ is the basis for your judgment that it is not intrinsically a sorcerous substance? Is this the extent of the data you produce to support your view?



Sure, why not? If I were to line up a bunch scientists in lab coats all testifying to the benign effects of marijuana and even to its positive medicinal use would that change anything? I don't see how? But why would their pharmacology and scientific data be somehow less relevant than your own? 

Admittedly, if I did line up these folks it certainly wouldn't help your case, but it wouldn't nullify mine either. People should not engage in sorcery or use marijuana for that reason, nor should they use it to get stoned and have their thoughts scrambled. There, we're both covered.  



> I said it once, and will repeat, that one aspect of sorcery is deception, both self-deception and the deceiving of others. May not your view that it is equivalent in its effects to alcohol – and thus morally equivalent to it – be the result of deception?



It may be, but you haven't done anything to prove that my view is "the result of deception." Just asserting something doesn't make it true. 



> This is what I meant when I said it is “de facto moral” to some: they see nothing wrong with it, there being no moral prohibition concerning it they are aware of.



I do see things wrong with smoking marijuana, I've said so, just not for the reasons you say so. I take it that is a "great evil" and sin in your book. 



> Your experience – and that of some others – is not sufficient grounds to overturn a plethora of data to the contrary. Merely wishful thinking, or positing it as an unsubstantiated truth-claim certainly will not do it.


 
Plethora of data? Would that be "scientific data" or just more data culled from the subjective experiences of drug users in the 1960's? For what it's worth I would love to see the "plethora of data" from the scientific community in support of the idea marijuana is a "sorcerous substance." I admit, that would be a new one. 



> Now when you say we must be able to deduce clearly any position from Scripture alone, you omit the need to _also_ rightly assess their proper application by an astute awareness of the situations these positions are to be applied to. The nature, chemically and psychopharmacologically, of the substance in question, is indeed a relevant area of inquiry. If this evidence supports grass being placed within the category of Biblically prohibited substances, then it is a case of “Scripture alone” judging something that falls within its purview.




Let me make it simple: 

Experience/Psychopharmacology/Chemical Analysis/_____ Fill in Blank + Scripture does not = Scripture alone.

Scripture + Scripture = Scripture alone.

What you would need to do is show from Scripture that marijuana is always used in sorcery and is therefore a forbidden "sorcerous substance" (is that even a word?) and this is something you simply can't do. For what it's worth I don't think the Scriptures care what substances are used in sorcery, whether ergot, alcohol, marijuana or anything else. It's the practice that is sinful. 



> You will note that my argumentation is quite apart from any personal experience, but is an exegetical issue, and a scientific one, with cultural corroboration (such as the use of the substance – due to its intrinsic properties – for shamanistic and occult purposes).



I don't know that your argumentation has been "quite apart from any personal experience," since you've included your own experience as a Sixties "poet" in the mix. 

Regardless, you'll note that my argument is also not based exclusively personal experience, I've included my friends too and I'm quite confident I can marshal ample scientific and other data to my cause, but why bother? The Scripture already gives reason why people should not smoke marijuana. But I don't confuse what the Scripture say with what you say. I'm not saying your point of view is without merit, rather it is over extended and beyond what the Scriptures teach. I'll make this point hopefully even clearer below.



> Having said this latter remark, let me restate an earlier caveat: that it sometimes is not used for such purposes, nor is any occult or sorcerous activity experienced by some users, does not negate the fact that it is sorcerous; it only goes to show that its essential nature is disguised at times, due to its deceptive qualities.



Then, again, it's your job to prove this point, and, so far, you have not. 



> I belabor this issue because of its importance. And let me state, were you in my church, I would, along with the other elder and the pastor, gently request / order you not to make your views known, as they are – in the unanimous view of the eldership – in defiance of clear Biblical teaching,



Then let me belabor this; I would not submit to your "gentle" request/order and for this reason, *you have not yet shown that my view is in defiance of ANY clear biblical teaching.* 

Yours may be the collective teaching of you and your session, but you have no warrant to bind me to the teachings of men -- even your own. If you ever had that "gentle" talk with me, it is you and the other members of your session that would be in defiance of clear biblical teaching. Sorry. You do not have, nor does any session, the kind of power you seem to think you have. 



> and would be subversive of the peace and purity of the church, to which, as a member, you are committed to strive for and uphold. Failure to comply would result in the beginning of disciplinary proceedings. The Scriptural prohibitions against sorcerery are to be taken most seriously.



Well, good luck trying to prove I'm guilty of engaging in sorcery.  

Why is this conversation starting to remind me of Monty Python?  
YouTube - monty python-witch scene



> Do you think me wrong in my stand as an elder, Sean? I am interested to dialogue with you on this.



Hopefully it should be extremely clear that, yes, I do think you are wrong in your stand as an elder and dangerously so. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I remember one time, in midstate New York, the only Reformed church anywhere near me was Reformed Baptist; I liked the pastor -- he was the first to challenge me as regards the 5 points of Calvinism -- and he knew that I was, being a Jew, of a paedobaptist orientation. When he saw my desire to join myself to that church, yet still hold to my paedobaptist convictions, he said to me, "Steve, you are welcome among us; only please do not be contentious." He was referring to my seeking to subvert the members of his church from their own doctrinal position. I heartily agreed, and complied. And I was benefited greatly by my time with them.

If we have a philosophical position that gives us a certain epistemological orientation, and this in turn gives us a view of what is or is not true knowledge concerning a certain subject, and this view puts us sharply at odds with those who have the rule over us (Hebrews 13:17), do we have warrant to defy our elders in this matter?

Am I wrong to say that Clark's and Robbin's views (if you do in fact accurately represent them) are an interpretation of the Biblical data, and that their views concerning what is knowable and what is not really is a philosophical position, without any clear (as in "indisputable") Scriptural support? And if that is the case, is it defensible for one holding to their views to stand in defiance of elders who are of a different interpretation of what the Scripture says is knowable?

It would seem then that the Biblical mandate to submit to the rule of the overseers may be waived in lieu of a philosophy of epistemology, which may aver that the elders are assuming knowledge where none can be.

There is a kind of spiritual anarchy which arises from this approach to living in the house of God, which sets philosophy above the simple rule of submission. Will not the result be the spirit of defiance, and eventual chaos?

Steve


----------



## Magma2

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I remember one time, in midstate New York, the only Reformed church anywhere near me was Reformed Baptist; I liked the pastor -- he was the first to challenge me as regards the 5 points of Calvinism -- and he knew that I was, being a Jew, of a paedobaptist orientation. When he saw my desire to join myself to that church, yet still hold to my paedobaptist convictions, he said to me, "Steve, you are welcome among us; only please do not be contentious." He was referring to my seeking to subvert the members of his church from their own doctrinal position. I heartily agreed, and complied. And I was benefited greatly by my time with them.
> 
> If we have a philosophical position that gives us a certain epistemological orientation, and this in turn gives us a view of what is or is not true knowledge concerning a certain subject, and this view puts us sharply at odds with those who have the rule over us (Hebrews 13:17), do we have warrant to defy our elders in this matter?



Apples and oranges Steve. You freely chose to join yourself to a body in spite of your difference over the administration of baptism. That was your choice and you were free to submit to their request or not. 

What you're suggesting in our disagreement is that I am somehow liable to ecclesiastic discipline should I fail to willingly submit to your "gag order" -- EVEN THOUGH you cannot even defend your position from the Scriptures! 

Last I checked, the PCA does not have a position on the decriminalization of drugs either pro or con and does not make that a requirement of membership. Perhaps your denomination does, in which case I wouldn't join.

So, to answer your question directly; Yes, we do have warrant to defy those who rule over us if what is being imposed upon us is without the warrant of Scripture. 

Consider this from James Thornwell:



> The scriptural view of the Church, as a visible institution, is that she is a mere instrumentality employed by Christ for the purpose of accomplishing His own ends. She has no will, wisdom nor power of herself. She is the instrument, and He the agent. She is not His confidential agent, to whom He communicates His will, and leaves it to be executed as she may see best. She is a positive institution, *and therefore must show a definite warrant for everything that she does. It is not enough that her measures are not condemned. They must be sanctioned, positively sanctioned, by the power which ordains her, or they are null and void.*



Your view of church leadership Steve, is, well, popish. I think the drug issue aside, you need to really rethink your position.




> Am I wrong to say that Clark's and Robbin's views (if you do in fact accurately represent them) are an interpretation of the Biblical data, and that their views concerning what is knowable and what is not really is a philosophical position, without any clear (as in "indisputable") Scriptural support?



Of course their view of knowledge is philosophical. After all, epistemology is primary and is the precursor to all other areas of philosophy. Beyond that I would say their philosophy concerning what is knowable is also supremely biblical. Even if someone is not a Scripturalist and doesn't adhere to Clark's philosophic position, I find it hard to imagine any P&R man disagreeing with Thornwell above. 



> And if that is the case, is it defensible for one holding to their views to stand in defiance of elders who are of a different interpretation of what the Scripture says is knowable?



Sure it is. You held to a different view of baptism, yet you joined a Baptist church. You willingly submitted to their request not to bring up your own doctrine of baptism of your own free will and not because of any threat of ecclesiastic discipline. You didn't become a Baptist did you? So I assume you honored your agreement and didn't try and convert Baptists to the biblical position. If you did not, I would hope the Baptists quickly gave you the left foot of fellowship out the door. 



> It would seem then that the Biblical mandate to submit to the rule of the overseers may be waived in lieu of a philosophy of epistemology, which may aver that the elders are assuming knowledge where none can be.



We are to submit to those who rule over us, but there is no Biblical mandate for anyone to submit to anyone simply because they say so. For example, wives are to submit to their husbands, but that doesn't give a husband the Biblical mandate to demand submission to his every whim -- especially if submission would be contrary to Scripture. Again, I think your view of church leadership will find more sympathy with the teachings of Rome than with Scripture. 



> There is a kind of spiritual anarchy which arises from this approach to living in the house of God, which sets philosophy above the simple rule of submission.



Hardly. What is set above the "simple rule of submission" is not some alien philosophy (as you insinuate), but rather the teachings of Scripture themselves. Frankly, that is what you as an elder are commanded to be in submission to as well. You have no authority within yourself to demand submission to your opinions, no matter how correct or "visionary" you think they are. 



> Will not the result be the spirit of defiance, and eventual chaos?



Again, Steve, you really need to rethink your position since you are basically making Rome's argument. God forbid if every man was permitted to interpret the Scriptures for himself. It will be ANARCHY!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

[On Sat the 24th of March high winds in this African village took down the wires to my compound and other NGOs that gave us internet connection; I finally have a connection for the moment, but am not sure about after this. Sorry for the delay getting back to this discussion.]

Sean, I had asked earlier, please don’t bring up “decriminalization” – the governmental aspect just clouds the more important spiritual issues. For this discussion’s sake, let us assume we are in a country where it is allowed.

You say, “Yes, we do have warrant to defy those who rule over us if what is being imposed upon us is without the warrant of Scripture.” 

What we are talking about is marijuana use among the people of God.

Do you agree that _pharmakon_ (Greek: a drug, i.e. in this usage a spell-giving potion) from which the words “sorceries” [Revelation 18:23] and “sorcerers” [Revelation 21:8; 22:15] derive, refer to a thing, and an activity, prohibited by Scripture? Are we in agreement this far? If not, how would you unpack the words in question? But if you are in agreement, let us proceed.

If I have been understanding you correctly, you say marijuana should be classed in the same category with alcohol, an intoxicant that “dissipates” if abused/over-used, and in that regard may be prohibited, but should not be equated with sorcery in general.

What I am seeking to do is bring our discussion down to the essence of our respective views, and the plain Biblical standards which are relevant concerning them.

Please do not bring my previous statements to bear on this _present_ part of the discussion, for I have sought to pare away personal references, etc. in lieu of “Scripture alone.”

You know my view is that marijuana falls into the prohibited class of drugs called magical or spell-inducing potions, and that their use _necessarily_ involves one in the prohibited activity of sorcery regardless of intent and experience.

And you disagree; what I want is to understand the essential basis of your disagreement. Am I correct in saying that for you there is simply no basis for determining the truth of what I assert concerning grass? You had earlier put it like this:


…there is no such thing as "empirically verifiable grounds"… and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all. More importantly, the combination of Scripture and conclusions drawn from "empirically verifiable grounds" together can never yield more truth.​ 
Okay, so we disagree on the classification of grass, and, in your view, neither you nor I have data to authoritatively pronounce a judgment on it one way or another, save for the Biblical principle against “dissipation”. 

Is this the basis for your view, and your not recognizing the “authority” of mine, seeing it as merely a human opinion?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Some thoughts on what we can know according to Scripture. 

It has been said, “…there is no such thing as ‘empirically verifiable grounds’… and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all.” I gather it is meant by this, that any information we glean from science or other non-Biblical sources is such that we cannot base authoritative directives upon them. Only upon actual Scriptural statements may we do such.

But consider: when Moses in the law (Deut. 18: 10, 11), by God’s command, forbade certain occult activities such as divination, enchantment, charming (by means of spells), wizardry, necromancy, etc, he assumed the requisite discernment among the judges of the people to know when these sins were being committed. Otherwise it were folly to forbid what they knew not.

When in New Covenant torah (law or instruction) it is pronounced by the Holy Spirit through the apostle John that like sins in his day – sorcery, enchantment (see Rev. 21:8; 22:15) – were forbidden, are we to think that He forbade something we were of necessity ignorant of, and thus could not know so as to steer clear of? Or has He in fact given the leaders among His people discernment in such things, so that the people may not fall into these sins through ignorance?

Has not “His divine power…given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), that we may life lives pleasing to Him, free of defilement, we who are called unto glory and virtue?

Let us consider what the Scripture says about “knowledge” and “discernment,” and what may be included in these. In Exodus 31, the LORD, talking to Moses of the man Bezaleel, says He has “filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of workmanship.” And the LORD goes on, telling Moses of other men into whom He has put wisdom, for the building of the tabernacle.

Now we know this tabernacle was made of earthly things, types of the heavenly, and when these holy things were later put in the temple, it was a temple made with human hands. Are WE not now the holy temple of the Lord? (Eph 2:21, 22; 1 Peter 2:5; 2 Cor 6:16) The builders of God’s physical house in the ancient days were given wisdom and knowledge – empirical knowledge, I might say, that is, knowledge of the properties of things in the physical world – even as the spiritual rulers, the priests and Levites, were given to “put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.” (Lev 10:10, 11). The LORD strongly rebuked the priests when “they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean…” (Ezek 22:26) Again, the LORD said to Jeremiah, “…if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as My mouth…” (15:19).

The NT reiteration of this would be in Hebrews 5:14: “…strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”

Concerning the _extent_ of knowledge: the Lord Jesus allowed that men “can discern the face of the sky” so as to know what the weather will be (Matt 16:3). He did not deny they may have knowledge of the physical world and its properties; one might call this “empirical knowledge.” We have shown that this sort knowledge was given men in the OT times, in the building of God’s tabernacle.

We have shown that it was _required_ of the priests to be able to discern between the holy and unholy, the sacred and profane, clean and unclean. This means that they must have had at least sufficient knowledge of the unholy etc to keep the people from it. We do not have Biblical treatises on necromancy, divination, enchantment, charming, witchcraft, and sorcery, and yet it is _tacitly understood_ the priests and judges have sufficient knowledge to discern and steer the people clear of them, as well as to punish those who engaged in these practices. 

How is it that some may assert God will prohibit a thing – and I am referring to the sin of sorcery in the New Testament – and yet not give us the knowledge to understand what constitutes this thing? It was not so with the people of God in the OT, neither is it so with us in the NT era.

This philosophy which says, “…there is no such thing as ‘empirically verifiable grounds’… and empiricism, as a means to truth, cannot arrive at any knowledge at all”, is not supported by the Bible. How preposterous that some may assert we cannot know what the sins are God has forbidden us, as we cannot truly know ANYTHING unless it is _specifically_ written in the Scripture. Unlike the OT law, NT torah often gives us _principles_ rather than codes governing all behavior, such as the 613 laws of the Mosaic code. The philosophy espoused by my opponent in this discussion seems to me a man-made theory, and contra the Biblical data (perhaps he is also not accurately representing Clark and Robbins, and this is just his own “spin” on them). One may claim to espouse Sola Scriptura, yet the claim be a false one. 

So I will repeat myself afresh: marijuana falls into the prohibited class of drugs called magical or spell-inducing potions, and their use _necessarily_ involves one in the prohibited activity of sorcery _regardless of intent and experience_.

It matters not that one smokes or otherwise ingests it merely to get “stoned” – for what is this “getting stoned” but inducing an altered psychic state by means of a psychoactive agent, _energizing the human spirit into a state of awareness apart from the Holy Spirit of God_? Whether one calls it being “stoned,” “high,” “zonked,” “mellowed-out,” or the number of other appellations given the state, the activating of the spirit and soul of man apart from the Spirit of Christ is by definition _sorcery_. Be assured it is neither a “neutral” act nor state, for there is no vacuum in the human spirit, it is energized by Christ, or by the unclean spirit. When a _Christian_ commits this sin, he or she grieves the Holy Spirit, and He departs from fellowship with the believer, while yet remaining in him, albeit profoundly grieved.

It may be objected that one might be engrossed in but soulish or physical activities, but this does not alter the essential nature of the state. Many are the fleeting “enjoyments” of sorcery, the pleasures of the flesh not least among them. The jaws of death are often the bite of exquisite pleasure.

The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, can be so powerful in some varieties that it may be on a par with the more powerful agents of sorcery, as mushrooms and peyote. The conventional wisdom – the consensus – in the godly churches, among the pastors and elders, is that marijuana is an agent of sorcery.

We must have some accurate knowledge of things in the world and their properties, else we might foolishly take our lives by unwittingly drinking or eating poisons. Medicines, which God has blessed us with, are known and classified by their properties.

True, such knowledge is not equal to eternal truths of Scripture, but such “empirical” knowledge of things is useful, and sometimes necessary, to godly living. Useful, in that our ailments may be relieved, and our lives even saved; necessary, in that we may not sin by using substances against God’s law, and reaping horrific harm to boot.

There appears to be a “super-spirituality” embraced by some, which is in truth delusional, as it is not in touch with the realities of the world God gave us to live in wisely, and to subdue.

And what is this “subduing,” where God told us to “replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28) but bringing it under our benign control, a control which involves gaining a knowledge of it so as to manipulate its various elements and their properties for God’s glory and our good? 

My opponent seems not to be operating from a Reformed hermeneutic, but from something alien to it, and to common sense. Is not God the God of all life, sovereign in all its spheres? Why exclude, then, realms of knowledge He has given us to master and order to His glory? Shall we exclude the “empirical data” of history* – yes, and of church history also – not to mention the numerous other disciplines of study and research, because some say we can truly know nothing but what is in Scripture? Surely this is a truncated view of life. 

“How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own hearts…and cause My people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD” (Jeremiah 23:26, 32)

Those who would gainsay, be sure you speak not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)

---------------

*[I am aware of the postmodernist objection to history – and other realms of knowledge – as empirical data, but that is a different discussion.]

Steve


----------



## Michael

*Genesis 1:29 and cannabis*

It’s been a while since I’ve followed up on this thread and I see it’s taken a turn that’s a little different from what I was hoping to discuss (but that’s ok). 

Let me explain quickly why I brought it up in the first place. I was involved in a discussion about accountability to God. Within that conversation the obedience of the magistrate came up. I was looking for an example where a magistrate criminalized something that God had given as a provision to man. Originally, I used examples of societies where the consumption of meat was outlawed (I’ve actually lived in such before). Marijuana was the second example I could think of, but in all actuality it was more the principle of the matter that I wished to discuss.

In the U.S. we are in a unique position as Christians because we are part of the voting force that elects our officials and determines our laws. Going back to the example of criminalizing the eating of meat, could a Christian actually support a law that tried to do just that? _Keep in mind, I’m not talking about whether or not one should obey such a law, but rather if a Christian could support it or vote for it_. Perhaps that would have been a better topic to choose.

Just for a twist of fun in this debate, if you don’t feel that the meat thing really applies, try eating a bald eagle or a snow leopard and see what happens.  

Regarding cannabis, it is apparently difficult to discuss because many seem to assume that supporting the end of its prohibition would in fact be supporting getting stoned. At every step in the conversation, that seems to be the underlying current that those who disapprove are fighting against. This makes for a frustrating discussion.

First, on the most basic level we are talking about criminalizing the simple possession of a plant. God has given all the green herbs to man, yet the authorities will take you away from your family and put you in prison if it is in your possession or growing on your property. This is the simplest and first aspect that must be dealt with. Can we even talk about this without assuming that everyone will end up participating in sorcery? 

Now of course our government has its reasons for banning the plant. Obviously, if no one smoked it, the legislation would not have been considered. But do we legislate people’s actions or do we legislate things? What’s more, should we be legislating things which God has specifically given to man? The argument that legalizing cannabis = legalizing cocaine doesn’t answer anything but further begs the question. 

The next step some would consider would be to recognize the practical uses of the plant (i.e. for medicine). There are certainly stronger medicines out there, whose proper use never seems to be attacked as a means of sorcery, but yet this one provision of God in all of its simplistic and practical help gets such a bad rap. Why? Because we all “know” that if it is legalized for medicinal purposes, someone just might get their hands on it to enjoy themselves. 

Lastly, there would be the argument that even the recreational use is part of God’s provision. I won’t get into trying to defend this, but the argument does exist. In fact, I think that it’s because the argument exists that so few will deal seriously with the first two situations. 


Steve,

I appreciate your thoughts and I do have an amount of sympathy to your feelings about marijuana and sorcery. I can tell that you’ve spent a good deal of time studying this and that you are also speaking from experience. I too have used marijuana in abundance in my past, but I can’t say that I share your opinion here. I had no plans of bringing this up because it would seem to add a pressupposition to my question here. But in fact, I really am more concerned with the magistrate’s accountability to God. Since you have gone in such depth though to explain the pitfalls of pot and how it draws one into sorcery, I would only like to remind you that no matter how much we dislike dealing with the relativity of sin, the truth of such relativity does in fact exists. I have no doubt that there are some who participate in sorcery (or the equivalent thereof) because they are stoned. But I do not believe that it is the same with everyone. Just as alcohol in various amounts effects different people differently, the same can be said of cannabis. Everything can be abused, but I’d stop short of making a blanket statement about everyone’s disposition to the effects of pot. The truth lies in the heart.

Now that I’ve said that I realize that I automatically become someone who is arguing for getting high. That’s not exactly the case. But oh well.  

Honestly, all of this is just a side thought to me. Again, I’m looking for a solid Biblical argument that the magistrate is justified here. That is, starting with point one: there is a plant given by God and if you have one in your backyard you go to jail.


----------



## Magma2

Ezekiel16 said:


> Again, I’m looking for a solid Biblical argument that the magistrate is justified here. That is, starting with point one: there is a plant given by God and if you have one in your backyard you go to jail.



I'm confident we can conclude there is no such argument.


----------

