Genesis 1:29 and cannibus

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

“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.]

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]

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.]

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?

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]

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.]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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