Marijuana VS Pork

[jasoncran]

I'm not convinced it would... but then I don't know where "here" is so I can't really comment I guess!




Debatable. As the articles I posted noted, there has been hardly any research on bipolar and cannabis. Some bipolars find it helps them, others find it induces or increases mania. Upon what basis are you saying that it always makes it worse and never helps?




As her psychiatrist should: without any analytical research on the effects of cannabis, it would be grossly irresponsible to recommend it to anyone. That, of course, isn't to say that cannabis is bad for bipolar. Don't make the mistake of thinking that psychiatrists know more than research psychologists, though... especially if they're psychoanalysts.

he doesnt deal with the how to deal with the disease like psychology but deals with the chemical side of it and he alsoe educates and trains the students when they come to intern with him and he teaches from time to at universities. so it likely he does know.

here a psychatrist has to be an md first then specialises.all manner of psychosis. i prefer to take his word over yours, given hes has been at it longer then i have been with my wife(10 yrs and he at least 20).

 

[Jam]

he doesnt deal with the how to deal with the disease like psychology but deals with the chemical side of it and he alsoe educates and trains the students when they come to intern with him and he teaches from time to at universities. so it likely he does know.

here a psychatrist has to be an md first then specialises.all manner of psychosis. i prefer to take his word over yours, given hes has been at it longer then i have been with my wife(10 yrs and he at least 20).

He doesn't deal with how to deal with the disease, and you trust his opinion on how to deal with the disease over those who have done research in that area?

As odd as that sounds, actually, I can understand that. We can't be expected to research for ourself every disorder in existence, and so it does make sense to trust expert opinions on these matters a lot of the time. Having said that, I think you are neglecting the fact that there is widespread disagreement abount cannabis and bipolar, and there is hardly any research on it. What this means is that your wife's psychiatrist's views are unlikely to accurately reflect the views of experts in the area.

Regardless, it isn't a case of choosing myself or your wife's psychiatrist, as what he says is entirely consistent with what I have said. As there is no formal research on the effects of cannabis, no responsible professional would advise its use. Indeed, being illegal, most would probably feel an obligation to advise against its use.

That does not necessarily mean that it is ineffective, though; rather, that we do not know if it is ineffective or not.


I think we've drifted a little off-topic. The only reason I mentioned research on bipolar was to refute Stovebolts' ubsubstantiated allusion that cannabis causes the disorder. Unless you are still arguing that this is the case, I see no reason why we should discuss this further in this thread.

 

[jasoncran]

a psychatrist is one who deals with the chemical issues of the brain. not the inablity to cope with stress.

the field of psycology deals with the later and also how to cope with the psychosis in avoidance of the stressors. meaning if some on makes me mad and i have bp what do i do when it happens, wheres my wifes shrinks would deal with..

i am mad at the world for no reason. and goes into the reasons why that can occur chemically.

ok does it make sense if one his anti-social(which my wife is and also many that have depression and bi-polar) to give them something that makes them want to sit in a room and be high and not learn to deal with the bad things in life?

i get mad at my boss, so rather then learn to stop the negative reactions or channel them into a healthy hobby.

but your solution is to hit the bong? yeah right. theres no known balencing of the brain chemistry that made my wife be more social while high. she didnt when high say lets go out to the park, nope sat there high and also watch tv or yapped alot.

without the mj she still does some of that.

her doctor told her go and see some counseling and LEARN COPING SKILLS.

MY WIFE while i was at war would blow 250 usd dollars a month while on meds for her bp when i was in afghanistan.

the reason.. the "stress" of me being gone. she fell apart when i left and got into the old habit of pot. i nearly left her over fact of wanting it as a crutch. that and i had issues with my ptsd.

so rather then go to church like we used to TOGETHER. SHE RETREATED into her own pot world and had friends all the smoked it with her and one that also tried to get into coke. her own daughter hated that friend for that attempt and still does.

the Holy Spirit would tell me when she got high every time. i understand why she did do it. but getting high isnt the answer. going to god is and seeking and learning how to deal with the problems of life is. people can be mean. do we just say well my boss annoys me, hit the bong?all that i saw when i returned with her friends the LORD told me that before.

seriously?

and now that she is off pot, we have our spats but you i dont miss the looniness of her highs when she did do it front of me. or how hyper she got.

after isnt being hyper a problem for the mania that they (bp types) have? yes it is. she is more mellow in that now.go figure and off her meds and has been taking off them as she is more stable. one would think that the less meds one is one the better. im glad her doctors do try to minimise the meds she is on.

 

[Jam]

a psychatrist is one who deals with the chemical issues of the brain. not the inablity to cope with stress.

the field of psycology deals with the later and also how to cope with the psychosis in avoidance of the stressors. meaning if some on makes me mad and i have bp what do i do when it happens, wheres my wifes shrinks would deal with..


i am mad at the world for no reason. and goes into the reasons why that can occur chemically.

Not exactly, but good enough. Psychiatry is simply the branch of psychology concerned with psychopathologies (mental disorders), and psychiatrists are those who work in this field: they are physicians specialising in psychopathology.

From what you are saying, it would appear that your wife's psychiatrist favours biological approaches to psychopathology, while what you are referring to as psychologists favour "the rest" (cognitive, social, behavioural or psychodynamic approaches).

ok does it make sense if one his anti-social(which my wife is and also many that have depression and bi-polar) to give them something that makes them want to sit in a room and be high and not learn to deal with the bad things in life?

but your solution is to hit the bong? yeah right. theres no known balencing of the brain chemistry that made my wife be more social while high. she didnt when high say lets go out to the park, nope sat there high and also watch tv or yapped alot.

What do you mean? I understand completely why an individual might use cannabis as a mood stabiliser to treat their bipolar affective disorder. It makes sense: bipolar is a disorder that primarily affects one's mood, causing mania and depression, and cannabis is known to have relaxing effects. Is that avoiding the problem and simply dealing with the symptoms? Perhaps... but then all drug treatments treat only the symptoms and not the problem itself.

I explicitly stated that a physician should not recommend cannabis for treatment. I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my position by claiming that "[my] solution is to hit the bong". Thanks.

MY WIFE while i was at war would blow 250 usd dollars a month while on meds for her bp when i was in afghanistan.

the reason.. the "stress" of me being gone. she fell apart when i left and got into the old habit of pot. i nearly left her over fact of wanting it as a crutch. that and i had issues with my ptsd.

so rather then go to church like we used to TOGETHER. SHE RETREATED into her own pot world and had friends all the smoked it with her and one that also tried to get into coke. her own daughter hated that friend for that attempt and still does.

the Holy Spirit would tell me when she got high every time. i understand why she did do it. but getting high isnt the answer. going to god is and seeking and learning how to deal with the problems of life is. people can be mean. do we just say well my boss annoys me, hit the bong?all that i saw when i returned with her friends the LORD told me that before.

seriously?

and now that she is off pot, we have our spats but you i dont miss the looniness of her highs when she did do it front of me. or how hyper she got.

after isnt being hyper a problem for the mania that they (bp types) have? yes it is. she is more mellow in that now.go figure and off her meds and has been taking off them as she is more stable. one would think that the less meds one is one the better. im glad her doctors do try to minimise the meds she is on.

I understand, and I'm genuinely sorry for the difficulties you and your wife went through.

Having said that, though, there are many other anecdotal examples of people successfully treating their bipolar with cannabis use. The fact of the matter remains that we don't know how/if it works and for whom!

Seeking God is wise, yes... but does that mean that we should neglect all worldly treatments for diseases and disorders and rely on God's miraculous powers instead? Do I refuse to take paracetamol because God will sort me out? No. Do I refuse to see my GP because God will fix my cracked sternum? No. Do I refuse an operation because God will heal me without it? No. You must explain why this argument applies to cannabis but not to any other treatments if you want it to be accepted, I'm afraid.

---


Do you believe that cannabis use causes bipolar affective disorder? If not, could we please cease the discussion of bipolar? It is going nowhere with regard to this thread's topic.

 

[stovebolts]

If you just quickly skim over that post again, you'll see that I didn't use the Bible's silence as an argument. I simply explained that our approach to identifying sin must be different when looking at things not mentioned in the Bible to our approach when looking at things specifically prohibited by/in the Bible.




Firstly, I just wanna say that I disagree with the emboldened text in that being drunk is not simply a state of altered thought processes. Or rather, that we cannot consider any altered state of mind to be a "drunken" or "non-sober" state of mind: our thought patterns are altered when we meditate, when we pray, when we sing, when we dance, when we sleep, when we read, when we partake in sport, when we study. Now, I'm not equating these to cannabis. What I'm saying is simply that the alteration of thought processes itself does not constitute sin: there are numerous other activies which are not sinful and which also alter thought processes. Perhaps a certain degree or type of alteration does, but mere alteration does.

This is what frustrates me. You lump getting high with meditating or prayer, then uncouple it at the last sentence.

Just to be clear. Getting High or Drunk is NOT the same as having one too many cups of coffee, or meditating or prayer. Let's call it what it is. It's called getting HIGH, and when one is high, their cognitive abilities decrease as a whole.

Anyway, let's take a closer look at this issue of sobriety, shall we? When the Bible talks of sobriety and drunkenness, it is not referring to cannabis (by your own admission). We know that the "high" cause by cannabis is very different to that caused by alcohol. So, is it fair to use these verses in this context as blanket prohibitions? Probably not.

Yes getting "high" is much different than getting drunk. That's why Pot is illegal for recreational use. But what I find ironic here, is that you said that you've never gotten high, yet it sounds like your defending it.

In the first century, Paul addresses the topic of the day. That is, one loosing his sobriety by way of Alcohol. The focus is not banning alcohol, but putting it in it's right perspective. Paul is clear, stay sober by not taking a substance that causes you to loose your sobriety. This extends out to any substance that negatively alters ones thought process.

What we need to establish, then, is what constitutes Biblical "sobriety". What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?

God doesn't need a drunken fool crying over the altar telling him how much he loves him, and God doesn't need a drunken fool dancing and singing his praises either. Likewise, I don't think God needs somebody stoned acting a fool either. In short, people who are stoned generally do some pretty stupid things... Obviously, you don't know much about that do you?

I'm unsure how relevant this is, but, having heard some of your background, I'm sure you've been around many people who are high on cannabis. Is it not the case that people often take part in philosophical-come-theoligical discussions? Does this lend no length of defence to usage? People can still focus (and, indeed, are perhaps caused to focus) on the bigger uses in life after smoking.

Also, out of curiosity, why do you accept medicinal use? It still has exactly the same effects... are you saying that the pros outweigh the cons in this case, or just that motive is important, or something else entirely?

Yes, I do accept it for medicinal uses where applicable. However, I think it's a very narrow niche. Would I ever use it for medicinal purposes? More than likely no. I don't like my mind altered in that way anymore. I enjoy being sober and in touch with reality.

As far as philosophical discussions. No, getting high doesn't lend itself well to that arena. Actually, Alcohol lends itself better if not for sobbing uncontrollably about the whoa's of this life, but mushrooms or even LSD lend well to philosophical discussions. However, those discussions are pretty out of reach with reality and the people that I know that have tried to live by those philosophies didn't turn out very well. Why? Because their philosophies were not grounded in reality. Instead they were created, nurtured and cultivated with an altered mindset. That's not how the world works...

There is more to life than a "feel good" and thought without action is useless. In other words, it's time to stop dreaming and actually start doing.. especially if you really want to make a difference in this world. It's as much as what you do, than just the ideas you hold.

 

[Jam]

This is what frustrates me. You lump getting high with meditating or prayer, then uncouple it at the last sentence.

I didn't "uncouple" anything "at the last sentence". I explained the ways in which they were similar, and then made sure to express firmly afterwards that they are not the same. I liken them in the ways in which they are alike and not in the ways in which they are not. What is the issue? It is a fact that meditation alters one's state of mind, and is a fact that prayer alters one's state of mind. These are not sinful, and therefore altering one's state of mind cannot be in itself sinful. It's that simple, and I'm quite clearly not saying that smoking cannabis is just as good as praying.

Just to be clear. Getting High or Drunk is NOT the same as having one too many cups of coffee, or meditating or prayer. Let's call it what it is. It's called getting HIGH, and when one is high, their cognitive abilities decrease as a whole.

I never said it was the same. If you read my posts again, you'll notice that I simply explained that all of these activies alter one's state of mind. Please see above.

What is it about mild cognitive impairment that makes inducing it sinful?

Yes getting "high" is much different than getting drunk. That's why Pot is illegal for recreational use. But what I find ironic here, is that you said that you've never gotten high, yet it sounds like your defending it.

How is that ironic? If someone says that an activity is wrong, and I only defend that activity when it suits my interests, then I am clearly not being intellectually honest. I'll defend what appears to be correct, regardless of whether or not I believe or take part in it myself.

In the first century, Paul addresses the topic of the day. That is, one loosing his sobriety by way of Alcohol. The focus is not banning alcohol, but putting it in it's right perspective. Paul is clear, stay sober by not taking a substance that causes you to loose your sobriety. This extends out to any substance that negatively alters ones thought process.

And how do you draw this conclusion from the text? It's not there. "Sobriety" does not clearly refer to the state of mind induced by "any substance that negatively alters ones thought process": this is your own take on the issue.

How are you defining negative? Whether or not getting high on cannabis negatively alters thought processes is a subjective matter of some debate, is it not?

God doesn't need a drunken fool crying over the altar telling him how much he loves him, and God doesn't need a drunken fool dancing and singing his praises either. Likewise, I don't think God needs somebody stoned acting a fool either. In short, people who are stoned generally do some pretty stupid things...

God doesn't need anything, and I fail to see the relevance of this to my question. What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?

Generally? The majority of the time, people don't do stupid things when stoned. I don't know about your experience, but it seems very unlikely that your acquaintances (or ex-acquaintances, I don't know) always (or even usually) do/did particularly stupid things when stoned.

And what do you mean by stupid? Just asking stupid questions or making stupid statements isn't really a very big problem, is it?

Yes, I do accept it for medicinal uses where applicable. However, I think it's a very narrow niche. Would I ever use it for medicinal purposes? More than likely no. I don't like my mind altered in that way anymore. I enjoy being sober and in touch with reality.

Why do you accept it for medicinal use but not for recreational use? It still alters a person's mind in exactly the same way. Are you just saying that the pros outweigh the cons in medicinal cases?

As far as philosophical discussions. No, getting high doesn't lend itself well to that arena. Actually, Alcohol lends itself better if not for sobbing uncontrollably about the whoa's of this life, but mushrooms or even LSD lend well to philosophical discussions. However, those discussions are pretty out of reach with reality and the people that I know that have tried to live by those philosophies didn't turn out very well. Why? Because their philosophies were not grounded in reality. Instead they were created, nurtured and cultivated with an altered mindset. That's not how the world works...

There is more to life than a "feel good" and thought without action is useless. In other words, it's time to stop dreaming and actually start doing.. especially if you really want to make a difference in this world. It's as much as what you do, than just the ideas you hold.

The result of the philosophical/theological discussions isn't exactly what I was referring to: rather, the simple fact that people attempt to engage in such conversations more when stoned is what intrigues me. I've not been around LSD and mushrooms anywhere near as much as I have cannabis and so I can't comment on those, but I am very curious that you seem to think alcohol provokes such conversations more than cannabis.

There is more to life than a "feel good"; yes, but that doesn't mean that we aren't allowed recreation at all.

Can I ask you a question, please? Do you come to this discussion with the intent to establish the truth, or are you just trying to demonstrate that the beliefs that you already hold are true?

 

[Drew]

Why do all the verses used to defend eating "unclean" food not apply to smoking pot (or tobacco for that matter)?

You may be making an assumption that the purpose of the Law was to "help people live properly".

I suggest that things are more complicated than this. I believe the Law of Moses was given to the Jews and the Jews only primarily to establish the nation of Israel as a distinct people (for reasons I can get into in later posts). Anyway, on such a view, the "specific foods" that are banned is not the main point - the main point is that one people - the Jews - are marked out from the rest of the world.

 

[stovebolts]

I didn't "uncouple" anything "at the last sentence". I explained the ways in which they were similar, and then made sure to express firmly afterwards that they are not the same. I liken them in the ways in which they are alike and not in the ways in which they are not. What is the issue? It is a fact that meditation alters one's state of mind, and is a fact that prayer alters one's state of mind. These are not sinful, and therefore altering one's state of mind cannot be in itself sinful. It's that simple, and I'm quite clearly not saying that smoking cannabis is just as good as praying.

Meditation and Prayer have no business in an argument when one is pro-weed. I am simply stating that there is a vast difference between Prayer and Weed and the way it alters ones thought process. They don't belong in the same conversation. Period.

I never said it was the same. If you read my posts again, you'll notice that I simply explained that all of these activies alter one's state of mind. Please see above.

What is it about mild cognitive impairment that makes inducing it sinful?

I understand that they are not the same. But I'm going to draw a hard line in the sand. They are not similar and I won't give you the edge to try and create a healthy link between the two.

It's as if your logic is saying, Prayer is good, Meditation is good, so weed has to be good.

But as far as mild cognitive impairment, I'm not talking about mild impairment. I'm talking about getting stoned on weed. And let me remind you, it only takes one hit of weed to get stoned on the really good stuff, and the average stuff you can get just as stoned off three hits. You seem to want to minimize this. Truth is, people who smoke weed for recreation smoke it for the purpose of getting stoned.

This is just like the recreational drinker. They don't drink for the mild feel good, which isn't bad. No, they drink to get drunk and we call that hedonism.

How is that ironic? If someone says that an activity is wrong, and I only defend that activity when it suits my interests, then I am clearly not being intellectually honest. I'll defend what appears to be correct, regardless of whether or not I believe or take part in it myself.

Why are you defending an activity you know little to nothing about? That's not being intellectually honest. To be intellectually honest would be to view all the data, not just the data that supports your view.

And how do you draw this conclusion from the text? It's not there. "Sobriety" does not clearly refer to the state of mind induced by "any substance that negatively alters ones thought process": this is your own take on the issue.

And how do you not clearly see what the text is saying?

Lets look at the dictionary.
Sober: not intoxicated or drunk.

intoxicated: to affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, especially to excite or stupefy with liquor.

Both weed and alcohol diminish ones physical and mental control.

How are you defining negative?

Same way the dictionary does.

Whether or not getting high on cannabis negatively alters thought processes is a subjective matter of some debate, is it not?

No it's not debatable. It diminishes ones physical and mental control and that by no means is subjective.

God doesn't need anything, and I fail to see the relevance of this to my question. What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?

Your right, God doesn't need anything, but by his very nature he's communal.

Tell you what, why don't you tell me how getting stoned, and not being of sober mind brings glory to God since you're implying that it does. And the bible clearly teaches us to be sober. Smoking weed causes us to loose our sobriety.

Generally? The majority of the time, people don't do stupid things when stoned. I don't know about your experience, but it seems very unlikely that your acquaintances (or ex-acquaintances, I don't know) always (or even usually) do/did particularly stupid things when stoned.

How do you know that people don't do stupid things when they are stoned? I do stupid things all the time when I'm sober. However, I did a lot more stupid things when I was stoned... and so did the people I got stoned with.

When was the last time you were around anyone that was stoned?

And what do you mean by stupid? Just asking stupid questions or making stupid statements isn't really a very big problem, is it?

What do I mean by stupid? Let me take a phase from Forest Gump. Stupid is, what Stupid does.

A stupid question might be, "Does it hurt when you slam a hammer into your thumb really hard?" But a stupid conversation might go, "It doesn't hurt when you slam your thumb with a hammer really hard".

Although I would add: When a person is hurt extreemly badly, the brain stops all painful sensations for the moment. But believe you me, the pain does come eventually... and that about sums up getting high as well is you really stop to think about it.

The result of the philosophical/theological discussions isn't exactly what I was referring to: rather, the simple fact that people attempt to engage in such conversations more when stoned is what intrigues me. I've not been around LSD and mushrooms anywhere near as much as I have cannabis and so I can't comment on those, but I am very curious that you seem to think alcohol provokes such conversations more than cannabis.

We should be result oriented in our thoughts, especially deep thoughts. Much wasted energy has been spent on ideologies that have no basis in reality.

But as far as what intrigues you, maybe your just hanging around the wrong people.

Why do you accept it for medicinal use but not for recreational use? It still alters a person's mind in exactly the same way. Are you just saying that the pros outweigh the cons in medicinal cases?

I'm not against morphine either as a medicinal drug. Are you? What do you think about morphine as a recreational drug?

There is more to life than a "feel good"; yes, but that doesn't mean that we aren't allowed recreation at all.

Absolutly, That's why Paul tells us to be sober, yet we can embellish in the Spirit.

Can I ask you a question, please? Do you come to this discussion with the intent to establish the truth, or are you just trying to demonstrate that the beliefs that you already hold are true?

I come to this discussion as one who has seen much in this world and has seen the truth to what weed can do in ones life. I have felt it's destructive power, and I have seen lives around me utterly destroyed by smoking that stuff. And that's the truth, whether you agree or not.

And by the way, you disagreeing will never bring my brother back, nor will it repair all the damage in so many peoples lives that I've seen first hand. And that sir, is also the truth.



Your not grounded in reality and your logic is skewed.

 

[theLords]

What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?

Because it is sin! Standing before God, to give Him glory, through any other medium than Jesus Christ, is pure idolatry. The only way that we can give glory to God is through Christ.

 

[jasoncran]

im sorry, what you dont know light is the prayer of HURTfull repentance when i get saved

Lord i ask that you heal me, fix me of my inabities to hold a job, be with a girl, i cant find happiness, drugs are the only option. and i know they wont work. martial arts cant satisify. O lord if you save me from this i will serve you, i repent of my sins. in your name

i knelt when i said that and I meant that. i havent turned back nor will knowingly, yes i have at times failed god but he is too good merciful to leave us. he has his ways of chatisment.

while not word for word of that prayer as it was 15 yrs ago. you get the point. God has very answered that prayer.

 

[Jam]

Meditation and Prayer have no business in an argument when one is pro-weed. I am simply stating that there is a vast difference between Prayer and Weed and the way it alters ones thought process. They don't belong in the same conversation. Period.

I understand that they are not the same. But I'm going to draw a hard line in the sand. They are not similar and I won't give you the edge to try and create a healthy link between the two.

I wouldn't refer to myself as "pro-weed". It just so happens that most of the points made in this thread - with which I disagree or believe are wrong - were anti-cannabis.

See below.

It's as if your logic is saying, Prayer is good, Meditation is good, so weed has to be good.

I'm beginning to get the impression that you aren't actually reading my posts. I have used pure and cold logic to explain why it is inconsistent (and therefore invalid) to claim that altering one's state of mind is sinful. The analogies I used were analogies, pure and simple. They were used only to refute one particular claim, and that was that altering one's state of mind is sinful.

-meditation alters one's state of mind
-meditation is not sinful
-therefore not all activities that alter one's state of mind are sinful.

Can I make it any more simple? Do you genuinely believe that merely altering one's state of mind is a sin?

It is absurd to refuse to accept the analogies simply because you do not like them being in the same conversation.

But as far as mild cognitive impairment, I'm not talking about mild impairment. I'm talking about getting stoned on weed. And let me remind you, it only takes one hit of weed to get stoned on the really good stuff, and the average stuff you can get just as stoned off three hits. You seem to want to minimize this. Truth is, people who smoke weed for recreation smoke it for the purpose of getting stoned.

Okay what? You were arguing that getting stoned causes cognitive impairment and is sinful because of this. I have argued that the cognitive impairment induced by a cannabis high is mild, and have asked you why you think mild cognitive impairment is sinful. You've responded by just referring to "getting stoned" again. You still haven't explained to me why the cognitive aspect of getting stoned is sinful.

This is just like the recreational drinker. They don't drink for the mild feel good, which isn't bad. No, they drink to get drunk and we call that hedonism.

What? I fear you misunderstand the word "recreational": it simply means something done for enjoyment or not work-related. When I drink a half-glass of wine for the "mild feel-good", I am drinking recreationally.

Why are you defending an activity you know little to nothing about? That's not being intellectually honest. To be intellectually honest would be to view all the data, not just the data that supports your view.

From where I stand, it appears that I know more than you do. Sure, you may well have more first-hand experience than I do, but that doesn't mean you know more. You've point blank refused to accept scientific evidence with no reason but that your own experiences must be worth more. This is logically, statistically and demonstratably a bad idea if you wish to discover the truth.

Note also that I was around cannabis quite a lot in earlier days, but I've never used it myself because I see no reason to and, at the time, I'd been brainwashed by the media into thinking "all drugs are bad" - which is, of course, absurd.

You accuse me of only posting the data that is pro-cannabis? I've mentioned several times negative aspects of cannabis, and the only reason I haven't provided the direct references and citations for these aspects is because I haven't been challenged on them!

Intellectual honesty is defending the truth even if you don't agree with the point of view from which the truth came.

And how do you not clearly see what the text is saying?

Lets look at the dictionary.
Sober: not intoxicated or drunk.

intoxicated: to affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, especially to excite or stupefy with liquor.

Both weed and alcohol diminish ones physical and mental control.

Missing the point: when Paul wrote about "sobriety", he wasn't referring to "drug(s), or another substance". Using a modern definition that incorporates these is misleading, because they were not intended in Paul's work.

Again, the cannabis intoxication is extremely different to alcohol intoxication, and so to use Biblical references against alcohol intoxication as arguments against cannabis intoxication is logically dishonest.

Same way the dictionary does.

No it's not debatable. It diminishes ones physical and mental control and that by no means is subjective.

Not by a large degree, though. And whether diminishing control is "negative" is entirely subjective - presumably most of those who smoke it don't believe that its effects are "negative".

How do you know that people don't do stupid things when they are stoned? I do stupid things all the time when I'm sober. However, I did a lot more stupid things when I was stoned... and so did the people I got stoned with.

When was the last time you were around anyone that was stoned?

People do do stupid things when they are stoned, just not as often as you seemed to be implying.

Probably a few years ago now. I don't have the same friends anymore.

What do I mean by stupid? Let me take a phase from Forest Gump. Stupid is, what Stupid does.

A stupid question might be, "Does it hurt when you slam a hammer into your thumb really hard?" But a stupid conversation might go, "It doesn't hurt when you slam your thumb with a hammer really hard".

What I meant to ask was what you meant by "pretty stupid things"? I am aware of the definition of "stupid".

I'm not against morphine either as a medicinal drug. Are you? What do you think about morphine as a recreational drug?

I know almost nothing about morphine, so I certainly wouldn't use it recreationally. If a doctor or trained medical professional suggested it then I probably would accept it.

But that's not the point: you didn't answer my question. If getting stoned is morally unacceptable by God's standard, why does it suddenly become OK if it has more desirable (for you- this is also subjective) consequences?

 

[Jam]

Because it is sin! Standing before God, to give Him glory, through any other medium than Jesus Christ, is pure idolatry. The only way that we can give glory to God is through Christ.

That's circular. You're arguing that it is sinful because it induces a state of mind in which a person cannot give glory to god because it is sinful. See the problem?

Yes, but why can we not give glory to God through Christ after using cannabis? This is my question.

 

[jasoncran]

God wants to be sober as in being able to feel hurts and joy and yet despite the sadness in life come to him for comfort.


MJ DENIES THAT . if it didnt or doesnt numb ones emotions why then do some smoke it?my wife would hit the bong when mad, sad or having some bp crap.

yet you say whats wrong with that? God wants to be our high! he is jealous he wants us to come to him with our hurts.

 

[stovebolts]

That's circular. You're arguing that it is sinful because it induces a state of mind in which a person cannot give glory to god because it is sinful. See the problem?

Yes, but why can we not give glory to God through Christ after using cannabis? This is my question.

Because God wants us to remain sober. Fact is, Weed causes one to loose his sobriety.

Lets look at the dictionary.

Drunk: pertaining to or caused by intoxication or intoxicated persons.
being in a temporary state in which one's physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink; intoxicated: The wine made him drunk.

Sober: not intoxicated or drunk.

intoxicated: to affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, especially to excite or stupefy with liquor.

Both weed and alcohol diminish ones physical and mental control and both cause intoxication.

I've taken the liberty to search the scriptures. I trust you will find these beneficial. I also believe you will find that being stoned is considered sinful.

Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

Luke 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

Romans 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

2 Corinthians 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

1 Thessalonians 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

1 Thessalonians 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Titus 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

Titus 2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Titus 2:6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.

1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Revelation 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

 

[Jam]

Because God wants us to remain sober. Fact is, Weed causes one to loose his sobriety.

Lets look at the dictionary.

Drunk: pertaining to or caused by intoxication or intoxicated persons.
being in a temporary state in which one's physical and mental faculties are impaired by an excess of alcoholic drink; intoxicated: The wine made him drunk.

Sober: not intoxicated or drunk.

intoxicated: to affect temporarily with diminished physical and mental control by means of alcoholic liquor, a drug, or another substance, especially to excite or stupefy with liquor.

Both weed and alcohol diminish ones physical and mental control and both cause intoxication.

I've taken the liberty to search the scriptures. I trust you will find these beneficial. I also believe you will find that being stoned is considered sinful.

Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

Luke 21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

Romans 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

2 Corinthians 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

1 Thessalonians 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

1 Thessalonians 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

Titus 1:8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

Titus 2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Titus 2:6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.

1 Peter 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

Revelation 17:2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Missing the point: when Paul* wrote about "sobriety", he wasn't referring to "drug(s), or another substance". Using a modern definition that incorporates these is misleading, because they were not intended in Paul's* work.

Again, the cannabis intoxication is extremely different to alcohol intoxication, and so to use Biblical references against alcohol intoxication as arguments against cannabis intoxication is logically dishonest.

*substitute any Biblical author

 

[stovebolts]

Missing the point: when Paul* wrote about "sobriety", he wasn't referring to "drug(s), or another substance". Using a modern definition that incorporates these is misleading, because they were not intended in Paul's* work.

I disagree, but if you insist, then tell us. What was Paul's point and what does Sobriety in the greek and Hebrew mean?

Again, the cannabis intoxication is extremely different to alcohol intoxication, and so to use Biblical references against alcohol intoxication as arguments against cannabis intoxication is logically dishonest.

You would be correct. Smoking weed is much different than getting drunk. However, both are capable of getting one intoxicated.

As far as using the Biblical reference against getting drunk in association with getting high, I think it a very honest reference as both intoxicate.

You still have not shown how one getting intoxicated brings glory to God.

 

[Jam]

I disagree, but if you insist, then tell us. What was Paul's point and what does Sobriety in the greek and Hebrew mean?

I don't know, but that is besides the point: it is evident that he was not referring to cannabis.

You would be correct. Smoking weed is much different than getting drunk. However, both are capable of getting one intoxicated.

As far as using the Biblical reference against getting drunk in association with getting high, I think it a very honest reference as both intoxicate.

Intoxication is a very general term, though, and the Bible is clearly not referring to cannabis intoxication.

You still have not shown how one getting intoxicated brings glory to God.

Why would I need to do that? I'm not asserting that cannabis use brings glory to God; I'm attempting to refute your claims that it does not.

How does sleeping bring glory to God? How does urinating bring glory to God? How does reading Lord of the Rings bring glory to God?

 

[stovebolts]

Missing the point: when Paul* wrote about "sobriety", he wasn't referring to "drug(s), or another substance". Using a modern definition that incorporates these is misleading, because they were not intended in Paul's* work.

I disagree, but if you insist, then tell us. What was Paul's point and what does Sobriety in the greek and Hebrew mean?

I don't know, but that is besides the point: it is evident that he was not referring to cannabis.

Wait a second. You don't know what the point that Paul, or the other Apostles were trying to make, yet it is beside the point? How can you say that you don't know what Paul meant by sobriety and in the same breath state that we can't use an american dictionary to look up what sobriety meant?

Based on what you've already said, how can it be evident that he was not referring to any substance that caused somebody to become intoxicated, thus loosing ones sobriety?

Intoxication is a very general term, though, and the Bible is clearly not referring to cannabis intoxication.

Intoxication is intoxication regardless if one were to smoke weed or drink a fifth of Jack Daniels. You've utterly missed the Biblical point.

You still have not shown how one getting intoxicated brings glory to God.

Why would I need to do that? I'm not asserting that cannabis use brings glory to God; I'm attempting to refute your claims that it does not.

Me thinks your trolling... You posted in Post # 66

What we need to establish, then, is what constitutes Biblical "sobriety". What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?

I have submitted many verses that shows what Biblical sobriety is. And your response is listed above. But I'll quote it one more time.

I don't know, but that is besides the point: it is evident that he was not referring to cannabis.

How does sleeping bring glory to God? How does urinating bring glory to God? How does reading Lord of the Rings bring glory to God?

I'm sure if we were both stoned we could sit around and have a in depth philosophical discussion on the matter. But as it sits, I'm pretty sober at the moment, and I know better.

 

[Jam]

Wait a second. You don't know what the point that Paul, or the other Apostles were trying to make, yet it is beside the point?

My apologies; I meant that I don't know the Greek or Hebrew that is translated as "sobriety".

How can you say that you don't know what Paul meant by sobriety and in the same breath state that we can't use an american dictionary to look up what sobriety meant?

I don't see the problem here. I don't know exactly what Paul is referring to - although it is primarily alcohol intoxication - but we have both agreed that it isn't cannabis. Just because I don't know what it is doesn't mean I don't know what it isn't.

You seem to perceive a contradiction here where this is none.

Based on what you've already said, how can it be evident that he was not referring to any substance that caused somebody to become intoxicated, thus loosing ones sobriety?

It is not evident that he is not referring to cannabis, but to claim that he is referring to cannabis is adding something to the text that isn't there.

Intoxication is intoxication regardless if one were to smoke weed or drink a fifth of Jack Daniels. You've utterly missed the Biblical point.

Intoxication is intoxication, but alcohol intoxication is not cannabis intoxication.

Me thinks your trolling... You posted in Post # 66

What we need to establish, then, is what constitutes Biblical "sobriety". What is it about the high of cannabis that leads you to believe that a person in this state of mind cannot give glory to God?

Me thinks you're again perceiving contradiction where there is none.

I didn't claim that cannabis brings glory to God; I asked you to substantiate your assertion that it cannot.

 

[WIP]

Prior to Jesus' clarification, having negative thoughts about another was not considered murder and having lustful thoughts about another was not considered adultery. It is clear that the meaning of things go much deeper than just the exact words used. One must consider the intent of the "laws".

"Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not!" (1 Cor. 6:13 NKJV) Does this imply only with regards to prostitution or is the intent of this statement with regard to sin in general? I propose the latter is the case as Paul seems to clarify it in vs. 19 and 20. "Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.