Genesis 1:29 and cannibus

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael

Puritan Board Senior
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...
 
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.
 
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?
 
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>.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.).
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?:D ), food, ad nauseum, can be abused, and said abuse is harmful to society as a whole.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Thanks for expanding on your answer, Chris. Quick question for now, when you mention this:

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.
 
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?)
 
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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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. =:cool:

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. :lol:
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top