#2 -- Is use of Marijuana, SINFUL?

[WhiteWings]

As a clinician, I personally see so many problems and people whose lives have been ruined by alcohol (and marijuana and other drugs) being a big part of that picture - as well as coming from a family of having had an addicted gambler, 2 alcoholics, and a brother that's drug dependent (in at least partial recovery) - I certainly don't recommend it.  Too much risk without enough possible reward.  But that's MY personal POV.

Addiction is never good. Everything I wrote is about recreational use. And I agree with Willie when he said no drugs for under 18. I heared stories or kids sitting stoned in class. Altough I see no harm in a joint I don't think joints mix well with studying.... No education=no future

That's my opion. But it's not my opnion being discussed here but Father's opinion...

[jabcat]

For me the simple fact that Jesus drank wine if proof that alcohol is not forbidden. Of course that doesn't clearly show being drunk is or isn't forbidden.

We see God railing against his drunken priests.  To whom will he explain his message if his priests are all a bunch of drunks?  So, I'd say there is a line that is crossed.  Of course, they can also be drunk with power, or any other foul thing.

I know I keep asking....
The job of the priests is to serve God. If they are constantly drunk they can't do their job. That's  surely wrong.
But is it a sin because they are drunk or because they no longer do their job.
Is being drunk ok when not on duty? Would God be angry if the were drunk the first time in 10 years?
Does God has other or stricker laws for priest concerning alcohol?

Personally I have nothing against people being drunk. But not if they drive a car when drunk because they endanger lives.

WW, you're one to look for it written in the scriptures.  One I found strictly "don't be drunk".  No specification on whether it's a priest, or layperson.  "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit";  Eph. 5:18

The other two directly address the 'law' issue.  (Paul also talks of lawlessness [rebellion, having a stubborn spirit etc.] as being something to shun and/or an example of depravity, as I would interpret it.

"Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God".  Romans 13:1

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,"  I Peter 2:13

I don't see a lot of gray areas there.  Is it against the law, or not?  Am I being obedient as God has instructed, or not?

[WhiteWings]

But is it a sin because they are drunk or because they no longer do their job.

They can no longer do their job because they are drunk.  Isn't a priest a priest 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

I don't know. Don't they have a few days of each year.
I read the Jewish Times once in a while. There is a section "Ask the Rabbi" aren't that priests?
Someone asked it was allowed to have sex (within marriage ofcourse) during Sabbath.
The Rabbi answered something like. I like it. It make my wife feel good too. So it isn't work so it's allowed.
I would never have expected that answer but that's not the point. If a Rabbi is a priest is he allowed to have sex during work? (24/7 job)

[Molly]

But is it a sin because they are drunk or because they no longer do their job.

They can no longer do their job because they are drunk.  Isn't a priest a priest 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

I don't know. Don't they have a few days of each year.
I read the Jewish Times once in a while. There is a section "Ask the Rabbi" aren't that priests?
Someone asked it was allowed to have sex (within marriage ofcourse) during Sabbath.
The Rabbi answered something like. I like it. It make my wife feel good too. So it isn't work so it's allowed.
I would never have expected that answer but that's not the point. If a Rabbi is a priest is he allowed to have sex during work? (24/7 job)

I'm talking about Old Testament priests, who are the template for the Melchizedek priest, not modern day Rabbi's.

[jabcat]

As a clinician, I personally see so many problems and people whose lives have been ruined by alcohol (and marijuana and other drugs) being a big part of that picture - as well as coming from a family of having had an addicted gambler, 2 alcoholics, and a brother that's drug dependent (in at least partial recovery) - I certainly don't recommend it.  Too much risk without enough possible reward.  But that's MY personal POV.

Addiction is never good. Everything I wrote is about recreational use. And I agree with Willie when he said no drugs for under 18. I heared stories or kids sitting stoned in class. Altough I see no harm in a joint I don't think joints mix well with studying.... No education=no future
That's my opion. But it's not my opnion being discussed here but Father's opinion...

And IMO, therein lies a big part of the problem.  Not only "why the risk of something that has been shown to be involved in the mix of so many problems"?  Addiction and its effects are a mixture of things, genes, upbringing, then mixing substances in with it.  My coworker JUST interrupted my typing this to tell me she just did a phone assessment regarding a person that was brought to hospital by the police.  Shooting holes in the ceiling of his house with a shotgun.  Drunk, postive for benzos, amphetamines, and cannabis.  Sorry, but the "safe little herb" contention doesn't wash with me.  Too many people can't "get away with it", and then too many people who can't get away with it, think they can.  Until they crash.  Hey, someone might be the one out of x many that has no major (apparent) problems.  Maybe they think it's worth the gamble.  Time tells.  I've been in this field long enough to know though, that denial and rationalization are so strong, sometimes it either takes a miracle, or that person having enough consequences that they finally wake up.  

And if it doesn't mix well with studying, what is that telling us about thought processes, decision-making, being influenced?

Alright, I'm winding down with this topic.  Everyone's got to decide.

 "Be filled with the Holy Spirit".

[Lupac]

Aside from numerous other things, I don't believe it's not physically harmful.  There's "evidence" that says it is, and "evidence" that says it isn't.  Which one's true and which one's propoganda?  I believe the former is true and the latter propoganda - to justify a behavior.

I've been a behavioral health therapist for 25 years+ now - probably done a thousand or more assessments, hospitalizations, etc.  In that experience, I've seen enough devastation of human lives (multiple factors, often including drug abuse/dependence, mj often included in the mix) to support my personal view that it's not harmless.  One has to make up their own mind though, and sometimes that only comes through the school of hard knocks.  Denial and rationalization are strong forces.  Experience is a great teacher

There isn't "evidence" to say it is. The "evidence" was made in a attempt to get something good and useful illegal. If you watch The Union, you'll see how it happened. And may I again reefer to Dr. Donald Tashkin?

http://current.com/items/90058270_dr-donald-tashkin-ucla-id-be-in-favor-of-legalization.htm

UCLA's Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He had hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, yet the results proved otherwise.

"What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Tobacco smokers in the study had as much as a 21-fold increase in lung cancer risk. Cigarette smokers, too, developed COPD more often in the study, and researchers found that marijuana did not impair lung function. Tashkin, supported by other research, concluded that the active ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has an "anti- tumoral effect" in which "cells die earlier before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to lung cancer."

However, the smoke from marijuana did swell the airways and lead to a greater risk of chronic bronchitis.

"Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects," Tashkin says.

"But at this point, I'd be in favor of legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances, because of the potential for harm. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance.

"Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm."

But you and I both know nether of us are going to go against our beliefs. I used to think cannabis was a "dangerous drug". Then I started looking at the evidence, and I learned it was not. And yes, experience is a great teacher.

Hi Lupec, I watched most of your movie, and talked to a few friends.

I guess I could go along with it being made legal and regulated like alcohol and tobacco.  But I still worry about the effect on children--and in this case, I consider them children under the age of 25 because it is a mind altering drug.   I don't think you should mess with the brain before it is fully developed or mess with a person's psyche before that is fully developed, either.  So with that caveat, I could go along with you.

I do continue to think, however, that drugs and alcohol are really not necessary or even conducive to a full and happy life.  Tuning in and dropping out is not the answer.  We need a lot of sober people to accomplish what we are meant to do.

If children are going to smoke, they're going to smoke. It's up to their parents to stop them, not the government. I agree with an over 21 cutoff, unless more conclusive evidence can be gathered about brain function, if it were made legal today.

For me the simple fact that Jesus drank wine if proof that alcohol is not forbidden. Of course that doesn't clearly show being drunk is or isn't forbidden.

We see God railing against his drunken priests.  To whom will he explain his message if his priests are all a bunch of drunks?  So, I'd say there is a line that is crossed.  Of course, they can also be drunk with power, or any other foul thing.

I know I keep asking....
The job of the priests is to serve God. If they are constantly drunk they can't do their job. That's  surely wrong.
But is it a sin because they are drunk or because they no longer do their job.
Is being drunk ok when not on duty? Would God be angry if the were drunk the first time in 10 years?
Does God has other or stricker laws for priest concerning alcohol?

Personally I have nothing against people being drunk. But not if they drive a car when drunk because they endanger lives.

WW, you're one to look for it written in the scriptures.  One I found strictly "don't be drunk".  No specification on whether it's a priest, or layperson.  "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit";  Eph. 5:18

The other two directly address the 'law' issue.  (Paul also talks of lawlessness [rebellion, having a stubborn spirit etc.] as being something to shun and/or an example of depravity, as I would interpret it.

"Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God".  Romans 13:1

"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,"  I Peter 2:13

I don't see a lot of gray areas there.  Is it against the law, or not?  Am I being obedient as God has instructed, or not?

I already addressed that whole chapter, if you want, I'll quote the article I read about it.

http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm

Understanding Romans 13:1-7

How are we going to overcome Romans 13? What was Apostle Paul really saying? The best way to bring understanding on Romans 13 is to ask, "Who was apostle Paul writing to at Rome?" The answer is found at Romans 1:7: Paul was writing to all those in Rome who are "beloved of God, called to be saints." He was not writing to the general population at Rome. He was specifically addressing the "called out ones," the Body of Christ.

HeadsmanIf apostle Paul was advocating obedience to secular authorities, then Caesar would have no cause against him. Why would Caesar have Paul beheaded if he was promoting obedience to Rome?

The world loves its own. If Paul belonged to Caesar, Caesar would not want to kill his own. If Paul was promoting "be subject to Caesar," then Paul would be Caesar's friend. You would not kill your own. You don't destroy the very instrument that advertises for you.

 The truth is that Apostle Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government known as the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. Already this new government was turning the world upside down. Caesar had Paul killed to help stop this threat to Rome's power.

If Romans 13 does not mean "obey the State," what does it mean? Romans 13 means, "Remember them which have the rule over you," as you will also find at Hebrews 13:7. Since Paul was addressing the saints at Rome, it is logical that he would instruct them to submit to those who look after their souls. It is a reminder to be obedient to the authorities God has placed over His people. For they are truly the "ministers of God to thee for good." Unlike worldly rulers, God's ministers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Therefore, "do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same."

Powers Not Ordained By God

Romans 13 is probably the most devastating thing to a Christian in the hands of the ungodly. It sounds so convincing to obey those who appear to be in power. For too long, secular governments have used Romans 13 as a club to beat Christians into obedience to them. Just because a group maintains power through their guns and jails, does not mean God put them there.

God said there are powers not ordained by Him at Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."

God didn't put them in power over the righteous. That's Satan's idea. The righteous don't need worldly, filthy authorities, which are no authorities at all. Do you think that they can instruct the righteous? They themselves steal. They themselves are perverts. And they presume to instruct the righteous? I don't think so.

Secular Governments Persecuted Paul

Paul being lowered in a basketApostle Paul had many troubles with worldly rulers. He was given 39 stripes five times by the Jews, beaten with rods three times, in perils by his own countrymen and by the heathen, and frequently in prison. (See 2 Corinthians 11:23-26). In Damascus the governor kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to apprehend Paul. "And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands," wrote Paul at 2 Corinthians 11:32. That is the same Paul that wrote Romans 13. He was forced to flee from the civil authorities, those "powers that be" that people say are ordained of God. Sorry folks, this does not compute. When Paul says, "the powers that be," he is saying the powers that be powers, are ordained of God. In other words, the only true powers are those that God ordains.

The crux of the matter is this, Does Paul in Romans 13:1-7 argue that the civil government of this world has legitimate authority over the people of God? We believe that the obedient, called-out people of God are not bound to obey manmade civil governments. God's people are answerable to God above all else and are bound by His commands. At the same time, God's people are not to use their liberty as a cloak to do evil, to foment rebellion or waste time trying to influence the politics of the governments of this world. Furthermore, we believe Paul in Romans 13:1-7 is referring to the spiritual leaders of the Body of Christ, not the civil authorities of this world.

If Paul is saying, "Obey the civil authorities," then he has a conflict in his life. Is Paul promoting Caesar or separating from Caesar? If Paul is promoting Caesar, there is no way I want Paul in my Bible. He can't work for Caesar and Jesus Christ. Caesar already has his writings, they are called "revised statutes" or the "law of the land." You can have them if you want. I would rather have God's Word. Actually that which is called the "law of the land," is the law of the devil. The term is used in the U.S. Constitution, where men claim that their laws are the supreme law of the land (See U.S. Constitution, Article VI).

Supreme Law of the Land

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:36-40). Do you know what that represents to a Christian? These two commands are the Supreme Law of the Land. If you believe that something else is the supreme law of the land for a Christian, someone has deceived you. It was a thief who drew you away from the true Supreme Law of the Land (see John 10:8).

If you have the two great commandments, how much allegiance do you have left for the worldly rulers of this dark age? Let me tell you, you have ZERO allegiance to Satan and his agents. All your time is spent "loving God" and "loving neighbor," and there is no room left over for obeying Satan and his minions.

    And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 1 John 5:19

Submitting to the King of Heaven

 As true followers of Jesus, we are led by the Spirit and our lives reflect the fact that we belong to another kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. Our stay on earth is only transitory. As citizens of Heaven, we are bound to submit and pledge allegiance to the King of Heaven and His government over us. We are not bound to obey the government of some nation just because we happen to be living within their so-called "borders."

 Remember, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26). Yet there is a pack of thieves out there who have divided up the earth and perverts are ruling over it. And they are doing it at the egging on of Satan himself.

Romans 13 has been wrongly interpreted by ruling secular governments to mean a Christian must submit to them. This misinterpretation forms a powerful weapon to neutralize and misdirect the power of God's Kingdom.

As the followers of Jesus Christ, we belong to another Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom has its own government, its own laws, and its own leaders. Apostle Paul was not commanding us in Romans 13 to submit to the civil authorities of the kingdoms of this world. He was commanding us to submit to the authority of God's leaders who oversee the "called-out ones."

 It is a fallacy that Paul was commanding Christians at Rome to submit to the secular government. It is time that Christ's followers renounce their allegiance to the ever-changing governments of men. They must set an example that there is a higher and more perfect form of government, the Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course there will be consequences. Jesus was brought to Pilate to be crucified on charges of "perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King" (Luke 23:2). We, too, must be willing to sacrifice even our very lives to proclaim God's sovereign rulership over us.

Loyalty and Obedience to Christ

When we boldly declare that we belong to God's Kingdom, we are left with no choice but to trust God for His provision in the face of a hostile world. We quickly learn that our safety is in our obedience. To trust in carnal weapons and physical force is vanity. We serve a living God. He is well able to make a way for us regardless of how much the modern day Nebuchadnezzar's rage and threaten to destroy us.

Christians are in no way bound by the Scriptures to obey and support the manmade governments of this world. We are bound to live peaceably with all men to the greatest degree possible. Yet our loyalty, allegiance, and obedience must always be found at the feet of Christ. Our goal is to see souls brought to Christ. The more fully we separate from the world and consecrate ourselves to God, the more power we will have to infiltrate the hearts and minds of men with a living example of the Gospel. The world must see that God does have a people on this earth, and that His power dwells in their midst. Let us commit ourselves to His kingdom and be His people.

[Lupac]

As a clinician, I personally see so many problems and people whose lives have been ruined by alcohol (and marijuana and other drugs) being a big part of that picture - as well as coming from a family of having had an addicted gambler, 2 alcoholics, and a brother that's drug dependent (in at least partial recovery) - I certainly don't recommend it.  Too much risk without enough possible reward.  But that's MY personal POV.

Addiction is never good. Everything I wrote is about recreational use. And I agree with Willie when he said no drugs for under 18. I heared stories or kids sitting stoned in class. Altough I see no harm in a joint I don't think joints mix well with studying.... No education=no future
That's my opion. But it's not my opnion being discussed here but Father's opinion...

And IMO, therein lies a big part of the problem.  Not only "why the risk of something that has been shown to be involved in the mix of so many problems"?  Addiction and its effects are a mixture of things, genes, upbringing, then mixing substances in with it.  My coworker JUST interrupted my typing this to tell me she just did a phone assessment regarding a person that was brought to hospital by the police.  Shooting holes in the ceiling of his house with a shotgun.  Drunk, postive for benzos, amphetamines, and cannabis.  Sorry, but the "safe little herb" contention doesn't wash with me.  Too many people can't "get away with it", and then too many people who can't get away with it, think they can.  Until they crash.  Hey, someone might be the one out of x many that has no major (apparent) problems.  Maybe they think it's worth the gamble.  Time tells.  I've been in this field long enough to know though, that denial and rationalization are so strong, sometimes it either takes a miracle, or that person having enough consequences that they finally wake up.  

And if it doesn't mix well with studying, what is that telling us about thought processes, decision-making, being influenced?

Alright, I'm winding down with this topic.  Everyone's got to decide.

 "Be filled with the Holy Spirit".

So he had four different drugs in his system, two that are known to bring out violent behavior (Alcohol and Meth.) and you blame that cannabis? Just so you know, testing positive for cannabis does not mean you're high. You can still test positive for up to thirty days after you smoke.

Oh, and riding a roller coaster, while fun, does not mix well with studying ether. Is it a sin to ride a roller coaster because it's fun?

[WhiteWings]

One I found strictly "don't be drunk".  No specification on whether it's a priest, or layperson.  "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit";  Eph. 5:18

The word excess is translated in many ways between versions. It also have various meanings.
But this one seems to fit best in this discussion "lacking restraint"
I think everyone reads it the way to prove his/her point made earlier in this thread. I read it as that not alcohol, not being drunk is a problem. But loosing control. If a joint/pint makes you feel happy and/or sleepy/happy that's no problem. But if it leads to hurting others of swearing then that is the problem.

Am I being obedient as God has instructed, or not?

Sorry James... what exactly did God instruct regarding Willie's joint?

[jabcat]

Aside from numerous other things, I don't believe it's not physically harmful.  There's "evidence" that says it is, and "evidence" that says it isn't.  Which one's true and which one's propoganda?  I believe the former is true and the latter propoganda - to justify a behavior.

I've been a behavioral health therapist for 25 years+ now - probably done a thousand or more assessments, hospitalizations, etc.  In that experience, I've seen enough devastation of human lives (multiple factors, often including drug abuse/dependence, mj often included in the mix) to support my personal view that it's not harmless.  One has to make up their own mind though, and sometimes that only comes through the school of hard knocks.  Denial and rationalization are strong forces.  Experience is a great teacher

There isn't "evidence" to say it is. The "evidence" was made in a attempt to get something good and useful illegal. If you watch The Union, you'll see how it happened. And may I again reefer to Dr. Donald Tashkin?

OK Lupac, decide for yourself brother.  Too many years in the field, year after year been exposed to both information and real life situations, and you're telling me there's no evidence that marijuana can be harmful - at the very least, as part of a pattern/mix/ of systemic dysfunction that's harmful to people?  Sorry, too much water under the bridge for that one.

While you're examining things, just please make sure you look into the defense mechanisms of rationalization and denial.  But again, it may be a number of years and bad situations in your life before you look back and see things for what they are.  Or, maybe you'll be one of the few who "get by with it", or at least be one of the many who don't ever realize that they didn't.

[jabcat]

And brother, I don't want to argue with you.  The main thing is, believe on Jesus with your whole heart, and let's continue to love and help each other.  Sorry for anything I may have said unkindly.   

[jabcat]

Am I being obedient as God has instructed, or not?

Sorry James... what exactly did God instruct regarding Willie's joint?

Context my friend, context.  

Well you rascal, I can't speak for Willi and his joint  .  I can only speak for me.  So,

I would believe, FOR ME, that;

1) I was doing something that would do (even potentially) unecessary harm to my body, specifically my lungs - and/or, with my other chinks in my armor, including my family history, I would be opening up possibilities of advancement to using other things.  Many may claim "not so".  I'm saying for me (and many people I've worked with) very likely "so".
2) I would be sinning by breaking the law where I live
3) I would be a poor witness to my children and others to whom it would be a stumbling block
4) I would be violating my consience because I would believe I was putting myself under an influence and/or authority other than the Holy Spirit

I can add, there's many a testimony around of folks who were bound to such activities that were miraculously delivered upon their salvation experience.  The Holy Spirit cleansing and filling them so they no longer desired such diversions.  My Dad being one astounding example of this.   

[Cardinal]

Exodus 30:9
Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon.


Could this apply?

  It applies to everything.........gonna be a long one, bear with me.

Strange = that which is not ordered by God to fulfill His purpose. Strange there means loathsome of BREATH, stranger, enemy, harlot woman, to alienate.

Strange incense = unrighteous prayers thru the MIND (only Christ is righteous and we pray according to His perfect will or let the upright Spirit pray thru us)

Strange burnt sacrifice = a sacrifice is that which is given by the WILL of man, not ordered by God, such as thinking that we are supposed to STAY in sickness as a "sacrifice". MANY are the afflictions of the righteous, BUT the Lord God delivers them out of them ALL (sooner or later as we keep pressing in).

Strange meat offering = meat there means to apportion or bestow. He apportioned Himself in the inner court baptism of the Spirit so that we could walk in His nature, displaying His fruits and these fruits are as His EMOTIONS, ie. kindness, meekness, ect. When we display things not on that list of the fruit of the Spirit to others, we are offering up that thing to HIM in them, which is why it says whatever you have done to the least of them, you've done unto Me.

Strange drink offering = the word drink there means to pour out, cast metal images, to anoint a king. Jesus poured out the money of the money changers, which is when He deals with our DESIRES, as the love of money (self gain) is the root of all evil. It is the "golden calf" of the heart, ie. the best (gold) carnal man (beast of burden/works of the flesh) has to offer.  

Eve DESIRED the fruit because it looked good and to make her wise. This is where He deals with the motive of the heart, EVEN FOR WHY WE WANT TO SERVE HIM. Five fold, would you still serve Him if it was only you and Him and no one else ever knew your name, thought you "righteous", or paid you to do THEIR sacrifices?

In the "curse" spoke to Eve, God told her He would turn her desire to her husband. Desire there means longing or craving and comes from a root word that means to stretch out after, to give abundance to, to overflow.

Eve, our soul, stretches out or reaches for after that which is NOT EXPEDIENT. The law is the ministration of condemnation, ie. it carries a curse with it for disobedience, that being death. By reaching out in this fashion, our iniquity is INCREASED, instead of what John said we must do, ie. decrease so the He can increase. I'm not going to go there now, but iniquity it was said, was FOUND. One of the meanings of that word "found" there is, TO PRESENT AN OFFERING.

It wasn't "found" as if it was a "surprise" to God, because He is the one who lowered us into the bondage of corruption to begin with, and He knew what was in the man He had created. He knew that the Satanic nature within carnal man would always reach for (and thereby present as an offering to Him IN MAN) that which is not expedient and brings death, for the thief cometh not but to kill, steal and destroy. Eve gave Adam the fruit and he did eat. The word "gave" there also means to stretch out, consecrate or devote (as for an OFFERING).

In short, this is why all four portions of our soul (mind, will, emotions, and desires) must go on the altar of God and be consumed with fire, and this is our reasonable service (as priests) to make of ourselves a LIVING sacrifice, ie. offering, a living soul or soul that was given life. We were MADE to be an offering, and in return for giving all that we are, He gives us all that He is. Blessings....  

 

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth...

Illegal in some places, not in others.    Because MEN have deemed something as ILLEGAL, does not mean that it should be ILLEGAL.

Just because we think something shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean we shouldn't be obedient and compliant with those laws. If you believe smoking pot is the Lord's bidding than do it even if it is illegal. However, I think the word is clear that we should obey the laws and respect authority as long as it does not conflict with us obeying God. When the laws of the land do not conflict with God's commandments to us, we should obey those laws.

You are correct here, and I am in agreement with you about it.  Which is pretty much why I ceased using it.  That LAWS made by men exist, does not mean they are necessary or GOOD ones.  There are MANY LAWS on the books, especially in "out of the way" towns, that are QUITE ridiculous in this day & age... Yet, they have never been removed.

In LEGALISTIC terms we look at the "laws of the land", and take God's WORD, that these must be OBEYED... and that is primarily a good thing... However, we must also consider the SPIRIT of God's WORD... which is NOT LEGALISTIC... nor must be considered in those terms.

Above you state this:  "I think the word is clear that we should obey the laws and respect authority as long as it does not conflict with us obeying God" -- though I agree with your "thinking"... Where does it state this, Seth? Where does it say we must OBEY the laws --- "as long as it does not conflict with us OBEYING God"? 

As to whether or not it is a drug... again, opinion.  It is a herb/weed created by God.  And has an inherent chemistry, as do all plants.

Technically speaking it is a drug. That doesn't make it bad. So is aspirin.

Oh really?  This statement is essentially "splitting hairs" bro...

"Technically" according to WHO? 

SUGAR (a LEGALLY sold product) can and DOES elevate children to raised and chaotic behavior by raising adrenalin in the system, making the pancreas release insulin in an UNNATURAL process...

http://macrobiotics.co.uk/sugar.htm#effect

Is SUGAR "technically" a DRUG, Seth?  If it IS (for it is "known" that it can and does damage to the body, and does AFFECT the mind), why do the sources (you probably refer to) that determine marijuana to be a "DRUG", not set LAWS and REGULATIONS concerning SUGAR?

...willieH 

[Molly]

....not set LAWS and REGULATIONS concerning SUGAR?

They should, if the growth in the incidence of childhood type II diabetes is any indicator.

[Raggedy Anne]

I think within the next decade we very well may see marijuana decriminalized nationally and tobacco, if not outlawed, taxed to the point of making it unaffordable - both of which are fine with me.   I know some fine souls who smoke pot in the very same way someone would indulge in a glass or two of wine.  I think a lot of the conservative views on it are a matter of social conditioning.

And that's all I will say about it in this thread.

Anne

[willieH]

willieH: Hi noname...

hey WillieH,
excuse my twisted sense of humour...I was saying these things tongue in cheek
I've never seen marijuana users get up to the destructive things some alcohol users get into...that's what i was trying to show...not that i'm saying all alcohol users do get violent, but many do...and alcohol is like the fuse that starts the fire...and the thing is alcohol is legal...that's why i was on about the fruits...
if you look at statistics how many road accidents are caused by alcohol abuse, domestic violence etc etc
you do not get these things type of things with mellowed out mj smokers

with regards to rastafarians, i was truying to point out they they would never hurt a fly when stoned or not...but many "straight" people would not flinch when killing another human being

here in africa mj has been used for centuries as medicine, stress relievant, social interaction etc and has never been seen as a drug in the sense that heroin would be, so no convincing necessary here my friend

Thanks for the explanation my friend...  

...willieH  

[jabcat]

If Anne doesn't want to respond, maybe someone else will, or at least it'll be food for thought for someone besides myself.  

Isn't it reasonable to say 1 joint and 1 glass of wine will likely not produce the same effect?  I'd suggest most people wouldn't be "under the influence" of 1 glass of wine.  

Oh well, anyway, I'm planning on being done with this thread unless it's to moderate.  I've said plenty, and after awile I get dizzy goin' 'round in circles.  

Until next time, friends....

[WhiteWings]

Isn't it reasonable to say 1 joint and 1 glass of wine will likely not produce the same effect?  I'd suggest most people wouldn't be "under the influence" of 1 glass of wine.

Most people don't smoke a whole joint. it's not uncommaon that a joint is passed along. Many people just take 1 or 2 puffs.
As with everything moderation is the key. Some drink one glass of wine others a bottle.

[Raggedy Anne]

If Anne doesn't want to respond, maybe someone else will, or at least it'll be food for thought for someone besides myself.  

Isn't it reasonable to say 1 joint and 1 glass of wine will likely not produce the same effect?  I'd suggest most people wouldn't be "under the influence" of 1 glass of wine.  

Oh well, anyway, I'm planning on being done with this thread unless it's to moderate.  I've said plenty, and after awile I get dizzy goin' 'round in circles.  

Until next time, friends....

James,
I didn't say that people smoked an entire joint alone, I said some people smoke pot in the same way that others have a glass of wine or two.   I used to be very judgmental about pot smokers a long time ago  - I grew up under the strong influence of Mrs. Reagan's just-say-no campaign and I never liked pot the few times I have smoked it.  However, I think it does not affect everyone the same way.  
I don't think it is even  remotely dangerous compared with meth and cocaine.  And I think it is beyond belief to think of people being locked up for having a bag of weed in their possession.  

I said that I was not going to say more.  But since you mentioned my name, I have.   The only drugs I personally do are tequila and triple sec and of course sugar -- I can't kick my sugar habit.  

Anne

p.s. I forgot about my coffee and tea addiction.  I use those daily as well.  Also diet Pepsi.  I'm a druggie.

[jabcat]

Thanks.  As I've repeated, I can't judge anyone.  If we wanted to, I do things you (anyone) could judge me for and vice-versa.  Maybe let's don't.    Nobody else can stand before God for us...we got'ta do it ourselves.

(the sugar's a tough one, huh?  I admit, I'm guilty...I have sugar on my hands  )

[Raggedy Anne]

(the sugar's a tough one, huh?)

Very tough because if you begin to read food labels, it is in all sorts of food products we use.   The masses are crazed and pumped up on high fructose corn syrup! 

[Seth]

Above you state this:  "I think the word is clear that we should obey the laws and respect authority as long as it does not conflict with us obeying God" -- though I agree with your "thinking"... Where does it state this, Seth? Where does it say we must OBEY the laws --- "as long as it does not conflict with us OBEYING God"?  

Well, in Romans 13:1-7 it talks about being in submission to governing authorities, "because the magistrates are not a fear to the good act." And God establishes himself as a God of order  1 Corinthians 14:33.

Hebrews 12:14
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord

Romans 12:18
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

If a believer is smoking pot and therefore willfully breaking the laws of the "magistrates" who govern the land they inhabit (even being strangers in a strange land) and it compromises that peace through lack of submission to that which does not compromise the evangel. How can the the peace of the Lord shine to the world when believers get arrested and punished by that same world-system who those believers ought to be witnessing the Gospel to? Would God want us to sacrifice that peace with all men in order to use pot for one's own spiritual growth? And that is why I think Paul says to be in submission to the governing authority in matters which DO NO conflict with God's evangel.

However it does say "if it be possible" to live peaceably, because it's not always possible. I think the example would be like in Acts 5 when it describes the disciples disobeying orders not to PREACH the Gospel in the temples.

Oh really?  This statement is essentially "splitting hairs" bro...

"Technically" according to WHO?  

I was talking about according to the definition of "drug."

Is SUGAR "technically" a DRUG, Seth?  If it IS (for it is "known" that it can and does damage to the body, and does AFFECT the mind), why do the sources (you probably refer to) that determine marijuana to be a "DRUG", not set LAWS and REGULATIONS concerning SUGAR?

I am not sure if the FDA qualifies sugar as a drug or not. But according to the "technical" definitions of what a drug is, pot is definitely a drug. However a "drug" not necessarily a bad thing.

drug
Mirriam Webster
1 a obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations b : a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication c according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1) : a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4) : a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device

2 : a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand —used in the phrase drug on the market
3 : something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness

[Lupac]

....not set LAWS and REGULATIONS concerning SUGAR?

They should, if the growth in the incidence of childhood type II diabetes is any indicator.

What? WHAT?!? I'm sorry, but I might be the biggest libertarian on the forum. (Can't say for sure.) And this just about makes my blood boil. (Nothing personal Molly.) I just can't stand the "It may hurt people, so it should me illegal." mentality. I am a big believer in personal responsibility. Meaning I'm not looking to other men, or the government to be responsible for my safety.

And Anne, I like you, you make the most sense in the fact that you're not particularity for it, but you're not against it ether.

Seth, I guess it'll do no good to repeat myself. I tried to tell you what Romans 13 is about. I posted this site, now the third time:

http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm'

But I don't think you've read it. I never had any direct replies from any of my posts from you. I posted scientific evidence for why it should be legal, but little for why a Christian should use it. I guess that's what you're looking for, and since there's no Bible passage about it, you've determined that you shouldn't, so why are you arguing about it?

[Seth]

Seth, I guess it'll do no good to repeat myself. I tried to tell you what Romans 13 is about. I posted this site, now the third time:

http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/understanding.htm'

But I don't think you've read it. I never had any direct replies from any of my posts from you. I posted scientific evidence for why it should be legal, but little for why a Christian should use it. I guess that's what you're looking for, and since there's no Bible passage about it, you've determined that you shouldn't, so why are you arguing about it?

Sorry, I didn't notice those posts. I didn't mean to ignore anything you put forth.

I read it, and I didn't see any reason to believe in that person's interpretation of it. We all interpret scriptures differently and that will inform what we believe in the end. As they said, they don't believe Romans 13 is referring to submission to the civil laws of the land. I disagree. God is one of order and peace with all men, and Romans 13 is consistent with that. But you WillieH and I are all free to disagree on that. Peace.  

BTW, I don't mind discussing it, but let's just try to keep away from posting with boiling blood when posting with eachother going forward just keep the peace.

[Lupac]

Sorry, it was kind of a joke.