Marijuana VS Pork

[jasoncran]

I just wanna say that the Daily Mail is probably the most unreliable source in existence;) My friends and I often joke (somewhat ironically, perhaps, given the first paragraph of that link) that to achieve a very accurate worldview, all one must do is read the Mail every day and automatically take the opposite view to that which is presented therein.

On a more serious note, I'm extremely skeptical of your claims that the BBC and "our version of the department of justice" want all (or even any) drugs legalised. These claims are not supported at all by the link you posted, unless you take the fact that one BBC reporter has praised his perception of the success of Portugal's drug legalisation to mean that the whole BBC must be in support of the legalisation of all drugs... and that clearly is not a very accurate view to hold




If several people had apparently been illogically arguing that football was sinful, however, would you not try to point out these falsities to deconstruct the argument? In some ways I think it almost dishonest to only support views with which one agrees regardless of whether they are correct.




Almost every single one of my posts here has referred to scientific evidence and not to personal observations. Only twice have I done otherwise, IIRC:
-first to demonstrate that cannabis use does not always lead to tragedy: I know users who did not experience tragedy due to cannabis. That's a deductive proof that requires no more than personal observations.
-second to claim that cannabis legalisation was not advocated by the majority in England, and I have accepted that this claim is unsubstantiated.

What's the problem?

and i extremely skeptical of yours. do really see the issue.

i can say the same about cocaine. my wife and boss smoked it and stopped. therefore based on that observation we should legalise it.

see how it works.was said pot in studies really only pot, what if wasnt the pot? they cant in the us give pot to the users to study it as it unethical.

 

[jasoncran]

indeed you did and per this page.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/126/6/1252.short

cerebellum. Central effects of cannabinoids include disruption of psychomotor behaviour, short‐term memory impairment, intoxication, stimulation of appetite, antinociceptive actions (particularly against pain of neuropathic origin) and anti‐emetic effects. Although there are signs of mild cognitive impairment in chronic cannabis users there is little evidence that such impairments are irreversible, or that they are accompanied by drug‐induced neuropathology

INTOXICATION! thats a sin sir.

defined for you
: an abnormal state that is essentially a poisoning <carbon monoxide intoxication>
2
a: the condition of being drunk : inebriation b: a strong excitement or elation



so care to continue in this support of sin?


so therefore being drunk or intoxicated is a sin.

hmm.does caffeine do that?

so i have known my fil to be drunk and have these types of conservation on life. yet he isnt sober at all. it doesnt make it right.

i joke the same about the nyt times which often quotes the bbc.

i could if you like pull the quotes on portguals drug policy being praised and the papers(la times, ny times, and the bbc) are all in unison.

 

[Jam]

and i extremely skeptical of yours. do really see the issue.

Of what claims of mine are you extremely skeptical? The sources that I have posted have actually supported the assertions that I have made. The source that you posted did not.

i can say the same about cocaine. my wife and boss smoked it and stopped. therefore based on that observation we should legalise it.

Firstly, this is probably more relevant to others in this thread than to me: as I explained once, I have only used personal observation twice. Once it was justified - I needed only to show that cannabis use does not always cause tragedy, and so one case of cannabis which did not lead to tragedy would have sufficed - and, as for the second time, I have already conceded that my assertion was not credible.

see how it works.was said pot in studies really only pot, what if wasnt the pot? they cant in the us give pot to the users to study it as it unethical.

Have you ever studied psychology or research methods? All the information that you request is in the articles that I posted. Being unable to give cannabis to users only rules out the use of one or maybe two types of study.

The fact of the matter is that any problems that we have with sampling, bias, cause-effect inference, extraneous variable control etc. will inevitably be grossly magnified in personal observations when compared to clinical and scientific trials and study. The whole point of these studies is to minimise these methodological issues and, while I accept that they are still present, they are far less significant than they are in personal observation.

For your specific example of cause-effect inference (i.e. whether it was the cannabis or another extraneous variable that caused behaviour x), it will interest you to know that the researchers take any confounding variables of which they can think into consideration, and then modify their results accordingly. The results concluded are these modified results - without these, the correlation would be much stronger.

Is there a particular study with which you have an issue? and with which assertion(s) that I have made do you disagree?

indeed you did and per this page.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/126/6/1252.short



INTOXICATION! thats a sin sir.

defined for you
: an abnormal state that is essentially a poisoning <carbon monoxide intoxication>
2
a: the condition of being drunk : inebriation b: a strong excitement or elation



so care to continue in this support of sin?

I never argued that cannabis intoxication doesn't happen; of course it does. What is it about cannabis intoxication that makes it sinful when other forms of intoxication are not necessarily so? Caffeine intoxication, for example. This is what I have been asking.

i joke the same about the nyt times which often quotes the bbc.

i could if you like pull the quotes on portguals drug policy being praised and the papers(la times, ny times, and the bbc) are all in unison.

If you are still trying to convince me that cannabis legalisation is supported by official bodies in the UK, then you still have a lot of work ahead of you. You've so far given me no reason whatsoever to suppose that this is the case. One reporter writing an article praising Portugese drug reform is not evidence for the claim that the BBC supports the legalisation of any drugs, let alone cannabis or any other specific drug. It's not even close.

It might also interest you to know that the BBC itself is entirely impartial with respect to such issues. That means that it is neither for or against controversial issues such as drug reform.

What's the relevance of all this to the discussion topic though? I've not argued for its legalisation.

 

[Jam]

Revelation 22:14-15

Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

φάρμακος
pharmakos

Origin:
from pharmakon (a drug)

Definition
pertaining to magical arts
a poisoner, sorcerer, magician


Translated in the verse as "sorcerers"

This word is the same from which we get the English Pharmaceutical or pharmacist or pharmacy.
In the ancient world, people abused drugs to conjure up dreams and visions and mixed potions and elixirs with "magical" properties.

It would seem that God is warning against both occult practices and drug abuse.

Galatians: 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
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.

φαρμακεία
pharmakeia

Origin:
from pharmakeuó (to administer drugs)

Definition:
the use of medicine, drugs or spells

Translated as "witchcraft"

Galatians uses a slightly different variation of the same word used in Revelation.

This is clearly a warning to drug abusers. Search the Holy Scriptures and the concordances for yourself and be fully persuaded in your own mind.

How does this person that you've quoted get from the use that his understanding clearly forbids to "abuse"? "Drugs" is a very general term. If the writers meant the administration of all drugs, then we all sin very often. If the writers did not mean all drugs, then we are back where we started: why should we group cannabis with the unacceptable drugs and not with the acceptable ones?

Do you believe that all "drug" use is sinful?


Thanks for this information; I didn't realise before the etymological link between sorcery and drugs.

 

[Jam]

I knew it! :p

Sorry;)


Time for me to get nit-picky, I think (sorry again!).

You said:

when we intentionally do things to distort our thinking, our mind, or our bodies in such a way that we lose sight of reality and our ability to focus on God then we are committing sinful acts.

I agreed (or at least intended to) that cannabis use is often one such activity.

I then asserted that sleep distorts our thinking and our mind in such a way that we lose sight of reality and our ability to focus on God.

Your primary response was:

Sleep doesn’t necessarily cut us off from God for the Bible is full of examples where he has communicated to many people while they slept.

I also agree with this. Trouble is, these things aren't the same: while I agree that cannabis use can distort our thinking and render us unable to focus on God, I won't agree that cannabis use "cuts us off" from God, or that God is unable to communicate with us after we have used cannabis. So, this same counter-argument that you've used for sleep can also be applied to cannabis use: we have no reason to believe that God will not or cannot communicate with us when "high".

Is it reasonable to think that an activity such as sleep designed as a necessary function for the survival of our bodies by God, the creator or our bodies, and a commandment issued by the same God, "Be fruitful and multiply," would not apply in this case? Cannabis fulfills neither of these rolls and does mess us up both physically and mentally.

I agree with you here in the main: God expects or allows or commands us to sleep and engage in sexual relationships with our husbands/wives, but he (obviously) does not explicitly do this for cannabis. This isn't exactly relevant to the point that I made, though: if sleeping distorts our mind so that we cannot focus on God, and intentionally sleeping is not sinful, then the universal assertion that intentionally distorting our mind so that we are unable to focus on God is sinful must (by deductive logic) be false. At the least it must be modified to "intentionally distorting our mind so that we are unable to focus on God is sinful unless otherwise specified by God"... and this assertion will require substantiation.

 

[WIP]

Everything you have said would also be true for alcohol (getting drunk) and yet being drunk is a sin. I will stick with being high is also a sin. Enough said.

 

[tig]

Everything you have said would also be true for alcohol (getting drunk) and yet being drunk is a sin. I will stick with being high is also a sin. Enough said.

Hello, thought I would interject a few things for thought. First off, I think it is good not to burden people with unneccessary burdens and restrictions than what mankind already has. We can't even keep the 10 basic commands, and when we add more and more commands to that, then the keeping of them gets even harder and harder.

Medicine, is it good? From one of the proverbs 17:22 A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

Of course this famous passage quoted by cannabis supporters: Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Here, it seems to say that every herb that bears seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, to you it shall be for meat. And this passage seems to say that in the sight of God, it was very good.

Also, I haven't really seen where it says not to get drunk in the bible, though I have read the passages speaking of being sober, but mostly those passages seem to be speaking of thinking clearly about the truth of the gospel, and not being entangled again in the confusion that the old covenant of darkness and death puts one in.

Also, in this passage Paul tells the Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

We can't miss the key words that open passages up, such as "wherein is excess", so it seems Paul is not completely forbidding drinking wine, even to intoxication at times, just don't do it to excess.

Then we can't forget this passage where Paul tells Timothy: 1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

Here it seems Paul was telling Timothy to drink wine for his stomach's sake. Worry is usually what makes the stomach unsettled in many cases. Drink a little wine and you may ease your mind- that's what I got from the passage.

Will some people go overboard? Absolutely, it's the nature of the flesh, part of the lesson of death. Can you go overboard in eating? Taking sleeping aids? Working? Giving, to where you can't supply for your own family (that's worse than being an unbeliever in Christ)?

Paul tells us to: Phillipians 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. I somehow think this is the key, moderation.

Though, with the illegalality of weed, it should pobably be something that people pass on. But not only that, we should pass on speeding, rolling stops, ect. written in the law books of this country wherein we reside. But if cannabis becomes legal, then mixed with moderation, one should be perfectly fine using it.

 

[stovebolts]

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

We see here that Paul does not approve of drinking wine to where one is drunk.

Timothy: 1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

We see here Paul instructing Timothy to use wine for medicinal purposes.

I rased the point about Morphine earlier. It's ok to use is for medicinal purposes, but it' not ok to use it simply to get high.

And I'd like to also note that one can drink wine without getting drunk. However, most strains of weed nowdays can render it's smoker stoned within the first three hits. So it's pretty easy to get stoned compared to drinking a glass of wine.

Though, with the illegalality of weed, it should pobably be something that people pass on. But not only that, we should pass on speeding, rolling stops, ect. written in the law books of this country wherein we reside. But if cannabis becomes legal, then mixed with moderation, one should be perfectly fine using it.

Right now in most states weed is illegal. As long as it's illegal if one smokes it, he is breaking the law.

But as far as it becoming legal (not if I have a vote in it), no, as Christians we should not be using it. What purpose does it serve, but more over, what is considered moderation when one can become utterly stoned within the first three hits.

 

[tig]

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

We see here that Paul does not approve of drinking wine to where one is drunk.

Timothy: 1 Tim 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

We see here Paul instructing Timothy to use wine for medicinal purposes.

I rased the point about Morphine earlier. It's ok to use is for medicinal purposes, but it' not ok to use it simply to get high.

And I'd like to also note that one can drink wine without getting drunk. However, most strains of weed nowdays can render it's smoker stoned within the first three hits. So it's pretty easy to get stoned compared to drinking a glass of wine.

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


I understand that you see this verse quoted above as stating: Do not drink wine to the excess of getting drunk. Whereas I see it saying: Do not be drunk with wine wherein is excess.

Look at our two statements, and see which one more closely mirrors Paul's. A little wine gets you a little drunk, alot of wine gets you alotta drunk.

Right now in most states weed is illegal. As long as it's illegal if one smokes it, he is breaking the law.

But as far as it becoming legal (not if I have a vote in it), no, as Christians we should not be using it. What purpose does it serve, but more over, what is considered moderation when one can become utterly stoned within the first three hits.

A man I know was at our thanksgiving dinner, and he is a partaker in cannabis, smoked a whole cigarette of it, came in and was as sane or saner (to my observation) than those who were completely sober. Sometimes we like to blame things for our own shortfallings, mostly though things are just things, it is how we use them that could be considered evil.

Many of your statements are no more than your perceived judgement. Others perceive it differently, and that is fine, for both sides. If one hold it to be evil, to the Lord he holds it to be evil, if one holds it as pure, to the Lord he holds it to be pure, but either way we are the Lord's.

And this is good to keep in mind also: Rom 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

 

[Jam]

I think Stovebolts does have a point here: the argument that cannabis use is okay in moderation because alcohol consumption is okay in moderation is a bit too simplistic. We need to remember that when we drink alcohol "in moderation", we are drinking it for the social aspect, because it tastes nice etc. etc. When individuals use cannabis, though, they usually do it for the purpose of getting high- cannabis users don't use it "in moderation".

A man I know was at our thanksgiving dinner, and he is a partaker in cannabis, smoked a whole cigarette of it, came in and was as sane or saner (to my observation) than those who were completely sober.

This intrigues me. Given that he appeared perfectly sober, that can't be given as a reason for his use being sinful. But then we have to ask why this acquaintance of yours uses cannabis if it doesn't prevent his sobriety? What does it achieve?

 

[stovebolts]

A man I know was at our thanksgiving dinner, and he is a partaker in cannabis, smoked a whole cigarette of it, came in and was as sane or saner (to my observation) than those who were completely sober

Go back and read everything I've already written and you'll see a man named Chad that I talked about earlier.

Kinda sad when somebody's "normal" mode of operation is being high... But hey, I"m a coffee drinker, and I don't function well without it either. I'll actually get caffeine headaches if I don't have at least one cup of coffee per day.

But the point is this. If I don't have my coffee, my body reacts and my mood is altered. In the same way, if your friend doesn't smoke his weed, his mind also reacts negatively. That's how addictions work.

When I stopped smoking cigarettes, my body started healing. My lungs felt like they were being ripped apart. I can't describe the pain and it was actually hard to breath. Man that really hurt. Ironically, I broke down and smoked 2 cigarettes and the pain went away. Why did the pain go away? Well, honestly it never went away, that's the pain I was going through for the past 20 years as a smoker. However, the cigarettes cover, or better yet mask the daily pain and it wasn't until I took the "medicine" away that I felt the pain that my lungs were experiencing on a daily basis.

So why do I bring this up? Well... It's just to show how substances can effect our bodies, and as a result, our moods. You say your friend acted more "sober" when he was high. I would argue that without the high, he was going through an emotional withdrawal. Simply put, he doesn't' know how to cope with things when he's not stoned.

.02

 

[stovebolts]

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.

Light,

I've been reading everything you've written and have chosen not to reply to much of it. What I reject is pure and cold logic. The world doesn't run on pure cold logic. Life is very irrational at times, yet logic primarily ignores this, unless it's labeled as a mutation of sorts. Put bluntly, I don't care for your cold logic. Simply put, it's not based on reality and well, it's just cold.

For me, this discussion is not a mental exercise in logical gymnastics. For me it's where the rubber meets the road. I know where I stand on the matter and I understand why I take the stand I do. If you want to come out into the street and see the world from a realistic point of view, I've got lots of stories to share. But I won't waste them in a logical battle with somebody that doesn't even know where they stand.

 

[WIP]

Also, I haven't really seen where it says not to get drunk in the bible, though I have read the passages speaking of being sober, but mostly those passages seem to be speaking of thinking clearly about the truth of the gospel, and not being entangled again in the confusion that the old covenant of darkness and death puts one in.

I did some digging and found some references from the NKJV. It would appear that drunkenness is listed quite readily among a few other sins such as lust, adultery, fornication, sexual immorality, homosexuality, sodomy, thievery, covetousness, extortion, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, dissension, contentiousness, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambition, heresy, envy, jealousy, murder, revelry, and debauchery. To me this seems to quite clearly indicate that being drunk is a sin.

Rom. 13:12-14. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.

1 Cor. 5:11. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.

1 Cor. 6:10. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal. 5:19-21. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph. 5:17-21. Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation (debauchery); but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God.

1 Peter 4:1-3. Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries.

 

[Jam]

Light,

I've been reading everything you've written and have chosen not to reply to much of it. What I reject is pure and cold logic. The world doesn't run on pure cold logic. Life is very irrational at times, yet logic primarily ignores this, unless it's labeled as a mutation of sorts. Put bluntly, I don't care for your cold logic. Simply put, it's not based on reality and well, it's just cold.

For me, this discussion is not a mental exercise in logical gymnastics. For me it's where the rubber meets the road. I know where I stand on the matter and I understand why I take the stand I do. If you want to come out into the street and see the world from a realistic point of view, I've got lots of stories to share. But I won't waste them in a logical battle with somebody that doesn't even know where they stand.

Any study of reality necessarily appeals to logic. When you reject logic, you essentially reject the ability to study anything. As you know perfectly well, I'm not just sat here at my desk writing a priori logical proofs for the justification of cannabis: I'm responding to reality in a logical way. This is what all people should do when they debate, for we cannot progress without doing so: base our arguments on reality and not logic, and we get non-sequitur nonsense (I saw my friend eat an apple therefore drinking fans is good, as an extreme example); base our arguments on logic alone without any evidence from reality, and we lack the ability to make any justified claims about reality. For example, "God says drawing is good. God is omniscient and honest. Therefore drawing is good." We need to justify - using evidence from reality - the premise that God said that drawing is good, or the argument falls apart.

You'll notice that I have made my arguments from reality and logic: I've drawn my premises from reality and then logically built upon them. This is how arguments work: people draw premises from reality and build upon them, and opponents either point out falsities in the premises (reject the observations) or point out how the conclusions don't follow from the premises (reject the allegedly flawed logic). If you refuse to accept logic in this fashion then you're gonna have a big problem. Again, if you reject logic then you necessarily reject "knowledge" of reality... I suppose I've appealed to logic to make this whole point, though, so by all means go ahead and dismiss it.

Peace.

 

[stovebolts]

You'll notice that I have made my arguments from reality and logic: I've drawn my premises from reality and then logically built upon them.

You've done a bit more than that. Here is the thing though, life is not built upon premises and logic. It's based on the whole. It's about discernment, not logical conclusions.

I'm not saying that logical conclusions are not important. They are. But discernment holds wisdom while logical conclusions hold data. In all the logic you've presented, you've missed the most important piece of data of them all, and that's how irrational people can be. That is a variable that you can't put into a box, just like you can't put mutation into a box. You mix it all up and you really don't know what's going to come out the other side until it becomes visible.

Tell you what, you tell me exactly where you stand, and I'll further to conversation with a more logical approach that meets your needs. In other words, I'll show you that I can speak your language. But I won't argue points that take us down bunny trails.

So where do you stand on Weed. Is it a sin to get stoned, or is it not a sin to get stoned. That's what I'm willing to debate. Where do you stand?

Grace and Peace.

 

[jasoncran]

why do argue that if its not a sin?

 

[Jam]

You've done a bit more than that.

Where?

Here is the thing though, life is not built upon premises and logic. It's based on the whole. It's about discernment, not logical conclusions.

I'm not saying that logical conclusions are not important. They are. But discernment holds wisdom while logical conclusions hold data. In all the logic you've presented, you've missed the most important piece of data of them all, and that's how irrational people can be. That is a variable that you can't put into a box, just like you can't put mutation into a box. You mix it all up and you really don't know what's going to come out the other side until it becomes visible.

Discernment is necessarily dependent upon logic, though.

I made a mistake in my last post by implying that I've made arguments myself at all: if arguing that someone else's argument is false or invalid is considered argument in itself, then I have made arguments. If, however, we consider this to be refuting an argument rather than making an argument, then I have not made my own arguments. To demonstrate that an argument is false, all one must do is either a) show that the premises are false or b) show that the conclusions do not follow from the premises.

Someone based their argument against cannabis on the premise that cannabis was very addictive; I showed this premise to be false. Someone based another argument on the premise that cannabis caused bipolar affective disorder; I showed this premise to be unsubstantiated. Someone else made their argument using their own experiences as premises; I accepted these premises but explained how the conclusions didn't necessarily follow from the premises.

Again, all I must do to demonstrate that an argument is invalid is show that the premises are false or show that the conclusions don't follow from the premises. This is what I have done. I genuinely do not understand your problem with my reasoning.

Tell you what, you tell me exactly where you stand, and I'll further to conversation with a more logical approach that meets your needs. In other words, I'll show you that I can speak your language. But I won't argue points that take us down bunny trails.

So where do you stand on Weed. Is it a sin to get stoned, or is it not a sin to get stoned. That's what I'm willing to debate. Where do you stand?

In short: I don't know.

I started out thinking that it was a sin a lot of the time but not all of the time. Instead of immediately assuming that stance, however, I tried to come at it from an impartial point of view. People presented arguments showing cannabis use to be a sin in many circumstances, and I accepted the premises and logic of the arguments demonstrating this.

The reason now that I don't accept cannabis to be necessarily wrong in all circumstances is that I have not been shown that this is the case.

 

[stovebolts]

In short: I don't know.

That reply reminds me of this conversation.
Mark 11:29-33 And Jesus said unto them, I will ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; He will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But should we say, From men--they feared the people: for all verily held John to be a prophet. And they answered Jesus and say, We know not. And Jesus saith unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Discernment is necessarily dependent upon logic, though.

Discernment is taking everything into consideration, including inconsistencies and things which are non rational.

I started out thinking that it was a sin a lot of the time but not all of the time. Instead of immediately assuming that stance, however, I tried to come at it from an impartial point of view. People presented arguments showing cannabis use to be a sin in many circumstances, and I accepted the premises and logic of the arguments demonstrating this.

The reason now that I don't accept cannabis to be necessarily wrong in all circumstances is that I have not been shown that this is the case.

I can accept that and even agree with that. Now then, let us define what instances we agree upon as being a wrong circumstance and what we would consider a right circumstance.

I'll follow your lead if you would be so kind to start the list. However, I may not be able to respond until Monday.

 

[theLords]

Discernment is taking everything into consideration, including inconsistencies and things which are non rational.

I'd like to add to Jeff's post here about cold logic. "Cold logic" is what prevents atheist and skeptics from receiving eternal life through Jesus Christ. They cannot logically understand how a man can feed thousands with a boy's lunch, or how a man can be raised from the dead.

The Bible tells us that we have the Holy Spirit that supersedes the "cold logic" of the world. God's wisdom is above the wisdom of this fallen world. The Bible also tells us that God will not allow man to reach Him and understand Him through "man's logic":

1 Corinthians (NIV)

Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]