# Is cannabis use a sin?



## abandonconflict (Apr 21, 2012)

OK first off, this thread isn't the place for bashing any religion. Please, leave opinions about the religion overall out of this. I would like to hear BIBLICAL arguments, for or against the use of cannabis. Does Christianity consider it a sin? 

I happen to be an atheist, but I am curious nonetheless if a case can be made, within the scope of biblical cannon, that it is not at all a sin to partake of the mota. If you believe it is, by all means, expound. All I ask is that we respect each other's beliefs.


----------



## hoss12781 (Apr 21, 2012)

I don't know the Catholic Church has an official stance on it but from growing up through 12 years of catholic school I can almost guarantee if you survey 100 Catholic Priests or Nuns 98 would say you're gonna burn.


----------



## Hugo Phurst (Apr 21, 2012)

I'm UCC, no it's not a sin. Against the law, yes, but not a sin.


----------



## GentlemanCheese (Apr 21, 2012)

"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the earth.To you it will be... And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:29-31). This verse pretty much states that it isn't a sin to use cannabis, but religious officials fuck up the actual religion. I dig Christianity, it's a pretty good religion, but all these religious figureheads are twisting up the actual religion itself. If its on this earth it was probably made for a reason man.


----------



## red0021 (Apr 21, 2012)

There's a fairly reliable way of figuring out if something is a sin or not. Do you enjoy it? Is it fun? If you answered yes to either of those questions, then 99% of the time, it's gonna be a sin.


----------



## red0021 (Apr 21, 2012)

Hugo Phurst said:


> I'm UCC, no it's not a sin. Against the law, yes, but not a sin.


I've always heard that (I'm not religious so idk, perhaps you can explain it to me?) breaking a law, if it's by a legitimate authority, is a sin. So, if smoking is against the law, than, it would be a sin. Yeah?


----------



## GentlemanCheese (Apr 21, 2012)

Nah man, it says in the bible that you're suppose to obey the law, but not if it intervenes with what god says, and in the bible god says it's okay in a few different verses. A lot of "Christians" that state that they're Christian, don't know shit about the religion and open their big mouth about things they haven't actually read, just shit they've been told by uninformed figureheads.


----------



## red0021 (Apr 21, 2012)

GentlemanCheese said:


> Nah man, it says in the bible that you're suppose to obey the law, but not if it intervenes with what god says, and in the bible god says it's okay in a few different verses. A lot of "Christians" that state that they're Christian, don't know shit about the religion and open their big mouth about things they haven't actually read, just shit they've been told by uninformed figureheads.


Oh, well, idk. I'm not saying it with any authority, that's for sure. lol. From listening to, ummm... Christians or whatever... it seems like the bible says just about whatever you want it to, depending on your world outlook. Such a great coincidence for some people.


----------



## GentlemanCheese (Apr 21, 2012)

Yea, through out history a bunch of people has twisted it to say what they want it to, and then they manipulate people that don't want to take the time to read the bible themselves, it's a shame haha. But there are still some good ones out there that actually know what they're talking about.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Apr 21, 2012)

its a sin so send me all your weed coz youre going to hell


----------



## silasraven (Apr 21, 2012)

The ancient annointing oil that king David was annointed with was part cannabis oil. [link to www.rense.com] 

David wrote fondly of buds and sheaves and precious seeds, and hemp is native to Israel & Lebanon. Archeology has proven that marijuana was in common use at the time of Christ, and it was no issue then. 

Genesis 1:29-30 says God gave EVERY green herb bearing seed. 

"I will raise up for them a PLANT OF RENOWN, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen anymore"- Ezekiel 34:29. 

Romans 14:2-4 tells Christians not to judge those Christians that use herb as Christians, for the Lord is their judge. Modern altered versions changed the word herb to vegetable without any basis in any original translation, which makes no sense, except to reinforce their global persecution of herb users. 

Those who say marijuana produces an evil consciousness, should see the favorable mentions of trance states in Acts 22:17 & Acts 10:10 and Numbers 24:4/16. 

Marijuana lowers blood pressure and calms the brain waves to a more meditative state, therefore is a sacrament provably, to aid in acheiving trance visions. 

No church has succeeded in legalizing marijuana as sacrament yet, proving that freedom of religion is but an illusion. But they allow animal sacrifices and such atrcities.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1006495/pg1


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 21, 2012)

I'm pretty sure it says "give unto the Dude that which is the Dude's". cn


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 21, 2012)

silasraven said:


> The ancient annointing oil that king David was annointed with was part cannabis oil. [link to www.rense.com]
> 
> David wrote fondly of buds and sheaves and precious seeds, and hemp is native to Israel & Lebanon. Archeology has proven that marijuana was in common use at the time of Christ, and it was no issue then.
> 
> ...


Fantastic. Thank you kindly sir and +rep to you.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 21, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I'm pretty sure it says "give unto the Dude that which is the Dude's". cn


New[er] testament?


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 21, 2012)

Would anyone care to make a case (again biblical) against use of the herb?


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 22, 2012)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> its a sin so send me all your weed coz youre going to hell


Sativa! I'm surprised at you! This is exactly the type of thing the OP was trying to avoid


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 22, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Sativa! I'm surprised at you! This is exactly the type of thing the OP was trying to avoid


pssh


weed is evil...let's burn it.


----------



## tyler.durden (Apr 22, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> pssh
> 
> 
> weed is evil...let's burn it.


Just burned about all I can tonight, so I did my part. The problem is that I grow it SO much faster than I can smoke it! It's an awful cycle, somebody HELP!!!


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Apr 22, 2012)

it is only a sin if you want it to be, if you dont want it to be... it isnt. good and bad are subjective at best.


----------



## H R Puff N Stuff (Apr 22, 2012)

mj is not the dudes yet unless molsanno gets its hands on it lol . so i say no sin


----------



## eye exaggerate (Apr 22, 2012)

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything."


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 22, 2012)

Going to copy/paste this article that Silasraven shared.

*[SIZE=+4]Jesus 'Healed 
Using Cannabis'[/SIZE]* [SIZE=+1]
By Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles 
The Guardian - UK
1-7-6[/SIZE] 

 [SIZE=+1]Jesus as almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract, suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.[/SIZE]  [SIZE=+1]"There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston University said.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism _ would inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures."[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Mr Bennett suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus were "literally drenched in this potent mixture _ Although most modern people choose to smoke or eat pot, when its active ingredients are transferred into an oil-based carrier, it can also be absorbed through the skin".[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Quoting the New Testament, Mr Bennett argues that Jesus anointed his disciples with the oil and encouraged them to do the same with other followers. This could have been responsible for healing eye and skin diseases referred to in the Gospels.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]"If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient anointing oil _ and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited[/SIZE]


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 22, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> New[er] testament?


King Ethan&Joel Version. "Verily, I say unto Thee: it tied the entire chamber together." cn


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 22, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> King Ethan&Joel Version. "Verily, I say unto Thee: it tied the entire chamber together." cn


The entire chamber had quite the session.


----------



## DoctorSmoke (Apr 25, 2012)

have it ever occurred to anyone that there is no physical proof of jesus and everything that was wrote about him was atleast 200 yo hearsay.


----------



## Hugo Phurst (Apr 25, 2012)

DoctorSmoke said:


> have it ever occurred to anyone that there is no physical proof of jesus and everything that was wrote about him was atleast 200 yo hearsay.


 - Really?

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

What are your thoughts on Robin Hood, Friar Tuck, and Little John, hangin together?


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

DoctorSmoke said:


> have it ever occurred to anyone that there is no physical proof of jesus and everything that was wrote about him was atleast 200 yo hearsay.


Has it ever occurred to you that you didn't read the first post in the thread?


----------



## jessy koons (Apr 25, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that you didn't read the first post in the thread?


It seems to me that the concept of sin is a human invention so the question of whether or not smoking cannabis is a sin can be answered yes or no depending on ones personal interpretation of the teachings of whoever you want to believe.

I would like to hear more Shakespearean Lebowski please. Something like:

Walter: Indeed a rug of value, an estimable rug, an honour'd rug; O unhappy rug, that should live to cover such days.

Donald: Of what dost thou speak, that tied the room together, Knave? Take pains, for I would hear well of that which tied the room together.

Walter: Didst thou attend the Knave's tragic history, Sir Donald?

Donald: Nay, good Sir Walter, I was a-bowling.

Walter:Thou attend'st not; and so thou hast no frame of reference. Thou art as a child........


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

I love to criticize religion and particularly Abrahamic religion as much as anyone. The thing is, I am looking for something in particular with this thread, that is, BIBLICAL arguments for or against the use of cannabis in the context of Christianity. This is a free space, where anyone can express themselves, but it really is rude to take a thread that I created, with a specific purpose, and hijack it such that Christians (who I am depending on to make such arguments) are spurned and what I am looking for is not discussed.

There are a dozen other threads where you can criticize, and believe me, I'll join in from time to time, but please, don't be a dick. I tried my query in other threads, but my posts were drowned out by the topics there, which were mostly criticism.


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Apr 25, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> OK first off, this thread isn't the place for bashing any religion. Please, leave opinions about the religion overall out of this.


you cant say sin and leve religion, good or bad, out of the equation. also asking for biblical answers is like asking the dentist to fix your tooth without touching it.

also the reason your posts were drowned out was because of the other DOZEN or so threads on the same subject


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

jesus of Cannabis said:


> you cant say sin and leve religion, good or bad, out of the equation. also asking for biblical answers is like asking the dentist to fix your tooth without touching it.


You have Reagan in your sig, but Reagan was anti-cannabis.

[h=1]&#8220;I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.&#8221;[/h]


See what I did there?


Dude I'm an atheist already, don't be a dick.


----------



## Daxus (Apr 25, 2012)

red0021 said:


> I've always heard that (I'm not religious so idk, perhaps you can explain it to me?) breaking a law, if it's by a legitimate authority, is a sin. So, if smoking is against the law, than, it would be a sin. Yeah?


Nah, state and church are separate. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". 

As for the OP's question: It depends. I think you'd have to get even more specific as the Bible can be interpreted many ways. Best thing to do would be to pick a specific branch of Christianity and ask an official of that church (pastor, priest, what have you). And I doubt you'll find many of them here, though I'd love to see someone like that pop up and give input, this question has crossed my mind several times despite being more or less agnostic.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

Daxus said:


> Nah, state and church are separate. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".
> 
> As for the OP's question: It depends. I think you'd have to get even more specific as the Bible can be interpreted many ways. Best thing to do would be to pick a specific branch of Christianity and ask an official of that church (pastor, priest, what have you). And I doubt you'll find many of them here, though I'd love to see someone like that pop up and give input, this question has crossed my mind several times despite being more or less agnostic.


Opinions (within scope) are actually what I am looking for. Any argument made, is obviously not going to be water tight, particularly if all you have to do is reject the religion.


----------



## Doer (Apr 25, 2012)

I can tell a story. I'm not an atheist or follower of any view and I don't even reject most of it. However, I think my views would be branded heretic across the board.

My friend's wife had a "conversion" to an Evangelical stance. She confessed to the Big Church, TV Minister, her husband's weed addiction. They and a few others came in, tossed the house and flushed the weed, broke the pipes, etc. 

My friend moved out for 5 years, raised the kids in separate homes, but no divorce. Meanwhile, the TV minister was discredited for the usual scandalous behavior, and my friend is back at home.


----------



## Daxus (Apr 25, 2012)

Well as best as I can answer then, _*if*_ I were a Christian, I would say it depends on how it is used. The Bible doesn't speak about Cannabis specifically, it does say &#8220;Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more&#8221; (Prov. 31:6-7; ESV). Some scholars, which I tend to side with, feel this isn't pro or against alcohol but instead presents life the way it is and it's up to the user to determine what is acceptable or not in their situation. And since it deals with an intoxicant I'd apply it to Cannabis as well. Throw in the whole thing in Genesis about giving us every seed bearing plant for consumption and I'm sold. But that's just what my interpretation would be.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

I was reading about Galations 5 (not sure which passage in particular but I read the entire chapter) and mention of Pharmakeia. I think this is the major reference that Christians make when arguing that the use of cannabis is a sin. 

I do know that Paul could not read or write in Hebrew. His knowledge of the Old Testament comes from a translation called the Septuagint (Greek). These are both strong conclusions drawn by linguists and so I will take them for granted. If it IS correct, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that our modern interpretation is a result of misleading literal translation of words that have different vernacular uses in their respective languages. They were then translated into other languages in which they have come to us. I would like to observe the argument in the form that religion presents it so that I can explicate it in that form.


----------



## Daxus (Apr 25, 2012)

I always thought Pharmakeia had more to do with pagan ritual and sorcery than drugs specifically (though they could be part of either).


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

Daxus said:


> I always thought Pharmakeia had more to do with pagan ritual and sorcery than drugs specifically (though they could be part of either).


Either way, it sounds like modern pharm resembles sorcery more than a natural plant.


----------



## richinweed (Apr 25, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> OK first off, this thread isn't the place for bashing any religion. Please, leave opinions about the religion overall out of this. I would like to hear BIBLICAL arguments, for or against the use of cannabis. Does Christianity consider it a sin?
> 
> I happen to be an atheist, but I am curious nonetheless if a case can be made, within the scope of biblical cannon, that it is not at all a sin to partake of the mota. If you believe it is, by all means, expound. All I ask is that we respect each other's beliefs.


respecting all (make)beliefs....sin is what u make it..if u want something to be a sin...then its a sin...just like the catholics think feeling the inside of an alter boy is a sin........club ped.......is it a sin to show yer pp to a girl...some say yes some say no...most wimmin i kno like my pp...is that a sin?......you can attach the word sin to many things..if u empower the word so be it....is it a sin that the west has no problem murdering the ppl of lesser nations for fun and profit...is it a sin to steal the life savings of millions of ppl.....do muslims abuse wimmin..it s not a sin if they do it....so make it what u will...


----------



## Daxus (Apr 25, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Either way, it sounds like modern pharm resembles sorcery more than a natural plant.


*stares at his bottle of muscle relaxers* What sorcery is this!?


----------



## Daxus (Apr 25, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> removed


And spell correctly, and use grammar and punctuation right, I completely skipped reading it because it was so garbled. Not to be mean, because I do hate bashing on people, but when replying to a post (especially serious threads) it's important to make your post clearly written and to run it through spell/grammar check somewhere when in doubt. And to check the original purpose and to follow it and not derail the train of thought. Also saying things like "*most wimmin i kno like my pp...is that a sin?" *really takes away from any credibility.

Let's me civil, nice, and stay on topic mmmkay? Then we can all have a good cool time.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

Dude, I'm sorry. I'm sorry I snapped and got so brutal. It is annoying that people are so fixated that they can't help but to derail my search for information, I know you were expressing yourself and I appreciate that you wished to share.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 25, 2012)

richinweed said:


> removed


ok cool. thanks anyway.


----------



## richinweed (Apr 25, 2012)

yup sorry..its all good..


----------



## Daxus (Apr 25, 2012)

richinweed said:


> ther was an honest question asked, there was an honest question answered..i never said there was no god....so U learn to read...and Hello asshole..this is a medical mj site, expect ppl to not be as perceptive about punctual formats.(as You)...that is clearly nothing to do with the thread........to the op..if you dont like answeres dont ask questions retard!


I meant no huge offense I simply wished to bring it to your attention it's a lot easier to understand when things are formatted more clearly. Also personally attacking the OP and name calling is really juvenile. This is my last word on the subject, peace be with you.


----------



## Doer (Apr 26, 2012)

In the bible I don't see that alcohol is a sin. But, when the old Testament was rewirtten as the Koran, they decided that alcohol was a sin.

Only in Christianity and Judism is there sin and guilt. It came from the religion of the Jews. This horrid emotional complex forced on folks from birth by the Church. So, it begins one of the greatest of power plays ever seen on earth. 

All have sinned! What??? You make up sinning unto God as you make up some convenient, limited definition of GOD, for worldly power and order in society. A church instead of a govt. 

We have been fighting that for over 2000 years. It is exactly what Jesus was up against. The Church of the Jews won by simply splitting the baby in 2. Then Islam, that's 3. East Orthodox = 4. Protestants = 5, Mormons = 6. Still the same baby. Sin and guilt for all.

There is no sin. Those that say there is are judgemental power mongers. Just read up on the eastern traditions. No sin, no guilt.

And btw, there is nothing in the Constitution that says we have to accept other's beliefs. Actually we have the right and duty to dispute them. Freedom from Religion.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 26, 2012)

Doer said:


> In the bible I don't see that alcohol is a sin. But, when the old Testament was rewirtten as the Koran, they decided that alcohol was a sin.
> 
> Only in Christianity and Judism is there sin and guilt. It came from the religion of the Jews. This horrid emotional complex forced on folks from birth by the Church. So, it begins one of the greatest of power plays ever seen on earth.
> 
> ...


I guess I should clarify where I am coming from here. I am on my way to becoming a medical professional. I may or may not prescribe cannabis in the future. I may or may not have a patient who feels that some medicines are sinful. I may or may not feel obliged to relieve this burden. I have asked this question several times, but my query is usually ignored and derailed by people who just wish to bash religion. So I started a thread, where I could stipulate, that I am looking for biblical arguments.

Some people are so fixated on bashing religion that they forget the meaning of secular.


----------



## Doer (Apr 27, 2012)

What do you think of secular is? Secular is being plowed under everyday. The world is becoming less secular. It's becoming more polarized.

Religion polarizes for power. And now that I see you are somehow fishing for redemption to be a pot doctor.....well, that's part of the problem. You said you were a god denying atheist, didn't you? What kind of Dr. councils the approval aspect of GOD for his prescription? An Atheist?

There are plenty of religions orgs out there that can give you the one-two knockout punch about the sin of cannabis. Why troll here? We indulge and totally sinlessly. What other opinion do you expect? Just to show you I'm a good egg. Try these folks for answers.

www.godandscience.org/doctrine/*marijuana*.html


----------



## GanjaGod420000 (Apr 27, 2012)

Christ means "The Annointed One"... Anthropologist Sula Benet's evidence of the word "kaneh bos'm", or cannabis, being intentionally mis-translated by the Greek Septugent to "sweet calamus", which is a cane like plant of little value, in their attempt to "hide" this marvelous plant of renown, described in Ezekial 34:29-30, was confirmed by the Hebrew Institute of Jerusalem in 1980. The verse in the Bible that details God's instructions to Moses on preparing the annointing oil that was used by all of the priests, and even Christ Himself, is Exodus 30:22-23... It says 250 shekels of "sweet calamus", but is REALLY kaneh bos'm...or cannabis, to us... God even gave warnings of prohibition in the future in 1 Timothy 4:1-5... There are 12 uses of cannabis in The Bible: 1-clothing, 2-paper, 3-cord, 4-sails, 5-fish net, 6-oil, 7-sealant, 8-incense, 9-food, 10-ceremony, 11-relaxation, 12-medicine... This is confirmed in Revalation 22:1-3, where the writer talks of the tree of life, which bare 12 manner of fruits, which grows on either side of the heavenly river... It also says how the leaves of this tree is for the healing of the nations... So, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure my main man Jesus was definately exposed to cannabis, and supports it's use, and that this is EXACTLY what The Bible is speaking of... Thatz my take on this...


----------



## GanjaGod420000 (Apr 27, 2012)

Lemme know when u get yer practice going, and I'll come get my recommendation from ya...lol...


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 27, 2012)

Doer said:


> What do you think of secular is? Secular is being plowed under everyday. The world is becoming less secular. It's becoming more polarized.
> 
> Religion polarizes for power. And now that I see you are somehow fishing for redemption to be a pot doctor.....well, that's part of the problem. You said you were a god denying atheist, didn't you? What kind of Dr. councils the approval aspect of GOD for his prescription? An Atheist?
> 
> ...


I understand, I was just hoping for one civil thread. I just want to explore it. I'm starting med school this year, finished my bio pre-med last year, currently sitting on my ass and countering my corrupt education with a deep internet search and being an autodidact. More than anything, I just want info, and I think for this info, I have to rely on Christians.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 27, 2012)

GanjaGod420000 said:


> Christ means "The Annointed One"... Anthropologist Sula Benet's evidence of the word "kaneh bos'm", or cannabis, being intentionally mis-translated by the Greek Septugent to "sweet calamus", which is a cane like plant of little value, in their attempt to "hide" this marvelous plant of renown, described in Ezekial 34:29-30, was confirmed by the Hebrew Institute of Jerusalem in 1980. The verse in the Bible that details God's instructions to Moses on preparing the annointing oil that was used by all of the priests, and even Christ Himself, is Exodus 30:22-23... It says 250 shekels of "sweet calamus", but is REALLY kaneh bos'm...or cannabis, to us... God even gave warnings of prohibition in the future in 1 Timothy 4:1-5... There are 12 uses of cannabis in The Bible: 1-clothing, 2-paper, 3-cord, 4-sails, 5-fish net, 6-oil, 7-sealant, 8-incense, 9-food, 10-ceremony, 11-relaxation, 12-medicine... This is confirmed in Revalation 22:1-3, where the writer talks of the tree of life, which bare 12 manner of fruits, which grows on either side of the heavenly river... It also says how the leaves of this tree is for the healing of the nations... So, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure my main man Jesus was definately exposed to cannabis, and supports it's use, and that this is EXACTLY what The Bible is speaking of... Thatz my take on this...


Fantastic, +rep for scripture references.


Anything else in the New Testament? I know Paul couldn't read Hebrew. That Revalations scripture is really vague but to me it sounds more like azadirachta indica because it is medicinal and bears fruit closer to monthly, it is also a tree and was well known back then, as it was customarily given as a gift by historic India to heal nations.


----------



## cannofbliss (Apr 29, 2012)

no... there is no such thing as sin... other than the creation of what any legalism/religion has made up... the use of the word "sin" was promulgated by the roman catholic church, which was defined as any and all violations of their bullshit legal system...

you all dont need to try to find any "loopholes" in the bible to try and "justify" smoking or consuming cannabis...

simply put there is nothing immoral or wrong nor harmful to another being by your consumption of cannabis...

just ask yourselves these two questions...

1.) did you physically touch and harm another human??? if answer is no then good you have done no harm... and is therefore perfectly moral...

2.) did you physically take the cannabis from someone else without their consent??? if answer is no then good again you have done nothing wrong...

END OF SUBJECT...


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 29, 2012)

cannofbliss said:


> no... there is no such thing as sin... other than the creation of what any legalism/religion has made up... the use of the word "sin" was promulgated by the roman catholic church, which was defined as any and all violations of their bullshit legal system...
> 
> you all dont need to try to find any "loopholes" in the bible to try and "justify" smoking or consuming cannabis...
> 
> ...


OK, you didn't read the first post. I didn't ask if it was moral, I asked if it was a sin. I am aware that all you have to do is reject the religion to dismiss any guilt. Don't be an ass.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 29, 2012)

I'm actually glad that this thread serves the double purpose of pointing out how fixated some atheists are about attacking religion any chance they get. It proves the claim that many religious folks make that they are persecuted and I completely agree. Some of you guys are unforgiving and closed minded. Your form of atheism is as much a dogma as any religion and I wish do disassociate from that sort of thing, although I am an agnostic atheist myself. You guys just couldn't help yourselves, you saw the word "sin" and equated it to immoral judgment and went into attack. Who is being judgmental now?

You can derail the thread all you want now, I think that all the biblical arguments that I was looking for have been nailed.


----------



## Rascality Afoot (Apr 29, 2012)

A sin is whatever is politically adventageous to outlaw at the time of writing (or editing). Notice there is no commandment against putting your penis in someones eye without sexual motivation, or building a ridiculously tall house beside a really small house. Apparently it's not a sin for the church to invest in arms companies or other harmful commercial entities. Sin is in the eye of the beholder, especially if it's a penis in their eye...


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 29, 2012)

Rascality Afoot said:


> A sin is whatever is politically adventageous to outlaw at the time of writing (or editing). Notice there is no commandment against putting your penis in someones eye without sexual motivation, or building a ridiculously tall house beside a really small house. Apparently it's not a sin for the church to invest in arms companies or other harmful commercial entities. Sin is in the eye of the beholder, especially if it's a penis in their eye...


"All things are subject to interpretation, whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." 
~Freidrich Nietzsche


----------



## crazyhazey (Apr 29, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> OK first off, this thread isn't the place for bashing any religion. Please, leave opinions about the religion overall out of this. I would like to hear BIBLICAL arguments, for or against the use of cannabis. Does Christianity consider it a sin?
> 
> I happen to be an atheist, but I am curious nonetheless if a case can be made, within the scope of biblical cannon, that it is not at all a sin to partake of the mota. If you believe it is, by all means, expound. All I ask is that we respect each other's beliefs.


christians claim everything on earth was made by god, therefore it is "holy". this includes marijuana, papi plant for opium, mushrooms, DMT and many other natural drugs. too bad all the priests like little boys, so who are they to call people sinners? we're all "sinners", nobody has real faith. jesus said all these things but people still follow a book that is composed of many different texts many years apart. most of them still use the cross to represent jesus, and he said we should NOT do that, yet every church has a cross above it. i think if he was still alive he would find it offensive, he didnt die because of people sins, he died cause some assholes didnt believe what he said.
the ironic thing is the catholic church did the same thing to scientists that the jews did to jesus, goes to show religion causes more destruction than peace, especially when the goal of that religion is power. watch some of the bullshit christian channels on tv, call the number they tell you to call and they'll guarantee you god will forgive you for your sins if you donate a few dollars. this is basically the equivalent to when the medieval Roman-catholic church scammed people into buying tickets to heaven, or buying food for their dead family members in the afterlife. christianity's purpose is to scam, most foreign countries are very aware of this. sadly, the US lags behind and still follows a 2000 year old book. think about how much land churches occupy in the US also, they dont pay taxes or anything. that land can be occupied by hospitals or schools.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 29, 2012)

*




*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Crazyhazey again.*


----------



## cannofbliss (Apr 30, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> I'm actually glad that this thread serves the double purpose of pointing out how fixated some atheists are about attacking religion any chance they get. It proves the claim that many religious folks make that they are persecuted and I completely agree. Some of you guys are unforgiving and closed minded. Your form of atheism is as much a dogma as any religion and I wish do disassociate from that sort of thing, although I am an agnostic atheist myself. You guys just couldn't help yourselves, you saw the word "sin" and equated it to immoral judgment and went into attack. Who is being judgmental now?
> 
> You can derail the thread all you want now, I think that all the biblical arguments that I was looking for have been nailed.




man do i love these modes of "communication" kinda like how bad "txts" can be at any form of effective communication... 

lol silly... i did read the first comment and if i were "replying" in direct relation to that post i would have put it in the quotations above... kinda like i did with this comment here and clicked "reply with quote"... 

anyways, no one was bashing anyone nor "persecuting"... perhaps this will make it a little clearer... 

if you have interpreted or the religious people had interpreted that i had harassed or punished in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict upon them; _specifically_ *:* to cause to suffer because of belief..

straight from merriam-webster themselves... 

then thats just plain silly, and perhaps the "internalization" of perceived injury is most likely the reason why people get "hurt" when anyone "affixes themselves to any identity that they want to "relate to"...

if you or any religious person feels that way all because i stated one fact about the roman catholic church then geesh how must you or any religious person feel when they get a history lesson on something like christianity or islam or whatever religion... 

anyways you asked the question "is cannabis use a sin"... and i just simply answered it... and wasnt attacking anyone... 

the extra of what was in the post after the answer was given in light of facts...

i mean geesh... you wanted to give crazyhazey some rep and he went and made a comment about priests and boys, and i never even went to that stretch or length, as that, even though fact, seemed to be more of a jab at "religion" than what i commented... 

but i guess it looks as if he has one thing in common with you that it seems that he believes in this stuff and thinks its real... so i guess thats why you "agree" with him and not me... lol


----------



## cannofbliss (Apr 30, 2012)

and p.s. i dont ignore religious ideologies, just to "get away with" or to "avoid feeling guilty"...

(*pay attention here* below i am going to make a statement to "all" not directed at anyone).... i am going type an example and this isnt directed at anyone or against anyone it is simply being used as a reference point to make clear about statements made in assumption...

like heres an "assumption"... "most religious people think "atheists" always attack religious people"...

well what would be "correct" about the above statement is that there have been and will be religious people who think they are always "attacked" by atheists...

however, and nevertheless, what _would_ be "incorrect" about that statement is when the title "religious people" was used, and when the word "always" was used... because first and foremost... human behavior is human behavior, regardless of the attachment of any identity...

in other words the only way the statement would be in fact correct or true would be to state that... "there are people who think that they are attacked"...

(which by the way i dont really dont like to use and or attach or affix my "identity" to any or such titles... simply for and in direct cause of how people in general, automatically make vastly incorrect assumptions of "people of whichever ideology" and always use that very very wrong assumption...

i ignore religious ideologies because i go by... well i guess you could call it "uncommon sense"... because apparently "common sense" isnt so common now is it... 

i dont feel any guilt about the use of cannabis, simply because there REALLY IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT... geesh...


if i have perceived the purpose and subject of what was taking place and or the comments throughout the thread... where people were looking through the bible for the justification of the use of cannabis and or the reasons cannabis is or isnt wrong or is or isnt a "sin"...

then it would be logical to see that i had made a correct presumption about what many of the comments were about and the underlying psychological cause for the comments and questions to arise in the first place...  

and all i saw in this thread was a bunch of people trying to in their "mindset", because they somehow have the innate "need" to find justification or explanation for something i.e. (use of cannabis) that never needed nor should it ever need to be justified in the first place... LOL


----------



## Kush70 (Apr 30, 2012)

lol funny......


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 30, 2012)

Cannofbliss, I'm an atheist. I know it is a fairy tale already.


----------



## abandonconflict (Apr 30, 2012)

cannofbliss said:


> no... there is no such thing as sin... other than the creation of what any legalism/religion has made up... the use of the word "sin" was promulgated by the roman catholic church, which was defined as any and all violations of their bullshit legal system...
> 
> you all dont need to try to find any "loopholes" in the bible to try and "justify" smoking or consuming cannabis...
> 
> ...


Ok, Sin simply defined, is a transgression of divine law. So when you say, well fuck divine law, you are basically pointing out the very fallacy I already know to exist, that I have asked to ignore and asked people to play along for the sake of argument.

Biblical loop holes are exactly what I am looking for.

I didn't ask if it was harmful, immoral or anything else, I asked if it was a sin.

The rest of your ideas in this quote are already answered.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 30, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> Ok, Sin simply defined, is a transgression of divine law. So when you say, well fuck divine law, you are basically pointing out the very fallacy I already know to exist, that I have asked to ignore and asked people to play along for the sake of argument.
> 
> Biblical loop holes are exactly what I am looking for.
> 
> ...


Afaik using cannabis doesn't go against either the letter or the spirit of the law. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Apr 30, 2012)

...sin is a mark against the body. What 'law' states is that if you do 'x', the resultant pain is expected. These laws, like mundane ones, help people. Kinda simple, and doesn't need a bazillion words. Holy books and 'sin' - these books are there for us to understand the body (and help avoid needless pain). And please, don't start up with the fckn inquisition bs - we get that. They weren't into avoiding pain back then 

All the pot in the world isn't going to get the message across anyway. The point of it all is reciprocal 'need' between creator and created.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Apr 30, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Afaik using cannabis doesn't go against either the letter or the spirit of the law. cn



J'aime ça


----------



## Wednesday (May 11, 2012)

red0021 said:


> There's a fairly reliable way of figuring out if something is a sin or not. Do you enjoy it? Is it fun? If you answered yes to either of those questions, then 99% of the time, it's gonna be a sin.


I hate it when people say stuff like this. God didn't make rules to keep people from having "fun". He didn't give directions just so everyone would be bored their whole lives. He was directing people on how to live to make their lives the easiest it could be for them. Take having sex before marriage, for example. It's not so his people wouldn't have "fun". It was so you didn't have babies before marriage, because it's a lot harder to have a baby with only one parent in the home. He said don't eat a pig, not because bacon is just so damn good, but because people back then couldn't store it properly and God knew they could get really sick or die from it. He didn't say no marijuana, because it's not going to kill anyone, and it's not going to hurt anything.


----------



## rmx (May 11, 2012)

Wednesday said:


> He said don't eat a pig, not because bacon is just so damn good, but because people back then couldn't store it properly and God knew they could get really sick or die from it.


And thus demonstrates my problem with the Bible, and ultimately, Christianity. The way I interpret God's message on this subject would be this:

*Proverb:* "Be not among the wine-bibbers nor the riotous eaters of animal flesh."
*Genesis:* "Behold I have given you herb yielding seed. To you it shall be for food." 
*Genesis:* "Flesh shall ye not eat."
*Psalm 104:* "God made the whale to frolic in the sea."
*Isaiah 66: 3:* "He that slays an ox is as he that slays a man."
*The 5th Angel of Revelation:* "Harm no green living plant."
*Proverbs 12:10:* "The righteous one is concerned for his beast."
*Ezekiel 3 and 4:* "My body has never been contaminated by animal flesh."
*Hosea 2:28:* "I will make for you that day a covenant with the animals."
*Genesis 6: *Noah was commanded by God to provide vegetarian food in the ark for people and animals.
*Job 12: 8* Speak to the earth and she will teach thee
*Job 5:* You will be in league with the stones of the field and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with you. 

There are countless other proverbs, citations, paragraphs and psalms in the Bible which are vehemently against bloodshed and meat consumption, yet very few Christians practice vegetarianism. Too much of the Christian religion involves carefully picking select phrases from the Bible and construing them to have alternative meanings in order to justify unjust practices. I'll never be a religious man, but I will always appreciate and respect the life of every other living thing on this planet. Moreso than many who claim to follow the righteous path of Christianity, it would seem. Guess I'm going to hell?

To address the question "Is cannabis use a sin?". Absolutely not. Everything that grows on this green earth is a bounty provided by nature for us to harvest and consume as we see fit. The very idea that it's illegal for a man to pick mushrooms or grow cannabis for personal use is laughable and absurd. I'm often baffled at this. I was born free, and no man has power over me, nor the right to deny me the choice to gather the fruits of nature. If, by doing this, my actions should somehow cause harm to another person - Then by all means, punish me under law. But until that happens, let us enjoy the world around us and everything the earth provides.


----------



## Wednesday (May 11, 2012)

rmx said:


> And thus demonstrates my problem with the Bible, and ultimately, Christianity. The way I interpret God's message on this subject would be this:
> 
> *Proverb:* "Be not among the wine-bibbers nor the riotous eaters of animal flesh."
> *Genesis:* "Behold I have given you herb yielding seed. To you it shall be for food."
> ...


*sigh* I can't look these all up without proper references, but I have to assume some of these have been taken out of context. Becaaause...let's see...the Psalm verse is just singing God's praises about his creations. Isaiah 66:3 is talking about a new Kingdom, where there will be peace. Proverbs 12:10 is talking about caring for your animals, not being cruel and mistreating them. Ezekial says he's never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals, and no unclean meat has entered his mouth. Nothing about meat considered clean. Um the second chapter of Hosea only goes to verse 23 in my Bible...Oh you mean verse 18 right? "In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground." He's talking about cutting people off from his salvation and punishing them. The Ark did not have a refrigerator and you shouldn't be eating fresh meat since...well...those animals are there for repopulation purposes. As far as Job goes, I talk to the earth all the time when i'm high and she does indeed teach me. And the last one God is telling him he will find peace with everything around him. These verses are not vehemently against meat eating. What YOU'VE done here is exactly what you've complained about, with carefully selected phrases from the Bible and construing them to have alternate meaning. When I saw Job on this list I was very surprised, because the entire book of Job is about...Job. And Satan beating the piss out of him and his sustained faith in God through it all. It has nothing to do with meat eating...


----------



## rmx (May 11, 2012)

Wednesday said:


> *sigh* I can't look these all up without proper references, but I have to assume some of these have been taken out of context. Becaaause...let's see...the Psalm verse is just singing God's praises about his creations. Isaiah 66:3 is talking about a new Kingdom, where there will be peace. Proverbs 12:10 is talking about caring for your animals, not being cruel and mistreating them. Ezekial says he's never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals, and no unclean meat has entered his mouth. Nothing about meat considered clean. Um the second chapter of Hosea only goes to verse 23 in my Bible...Oh you mean verse 18 right? "In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground." He's talking about cutting people off from his salvation and punishing them. The Ark did not have a refrigerator and you shouldn't be eating fresh meat since...well...those animals are there for repopulation purposes. As far as Job goes, I talk to the earth all the time when i'm high and she does indeed teach me. And the last one God is telling him he will find peace with everything around him. These verses are not vehemently against meat eating. What YOU'VE done here is exactly what you've complained about, with carefully selected phrases from the Bible and construing them to have alternate meaning. When I saw Job on this list I was very surprised, because the entire book of Job is about...Job. And Satan beating the piss out of him and his sustained faith in God through it all. It has nothing to do with meat eating...


Sorry Wednesday, whilst my reply was inspired by your post, I meant to add that this wasn't a jab at you - just my take on the meat / religion thing in general, since it had been mentioned, fleetingly. Yes, you're right - I did basically construe those verses to fit in with my ideals. I wonder who interpreted them correctly though?  I guess religion isn't all rose bushes and cotton clouds, though I do wonder what Christians who eat meat think when they watch footage of industrial slaughterhouses in action. Isn't slaughter and the destruction of sentient life an affront to everything taught in the holy book? I wonder too - If there's a God and an afterlife, and I stand before Him awaiting his verdict on my entry into his garden - Would he consider the life of compassion I tried to live, and respect for all life around me - despite my lack of belief? Or would he cast me down to the pits of Hell for not believing in him?


----------



## Wednesday (May 11, 2012)

rmx said:


> Sorry Wednesday, whilst my reply was inspired by your post, I meant to add that this wasn't a jab at you - just my take on the meat / religion thing in general, since it had been mentioned, fleetingly. Yes, you're right - I did basically construe those verses to fit in with my ideals. I wonder who interpreted them correctly though?  I guess religion isn't all rose bushes and cotton clouds, though I do wonder what Christians who eat meat think when they watch footage of industrial slaughterhouses in action. Isn't slaughter and the destruction of sentient life an affront to everything taught in the holy book? I wonder too - If there's a God and an afterlife, and I stand before Him awaiting his verdict on my entry into his garden - Would he consider the life of compassion I tried to live, and respect for all life around me - despite my lack of belief? Or would he cast me down to the pits of Hell for not believing in him?


I wasn't offended, no need to apologize  The Bible has a lot of books that are just stories...just accounts of what people did and how God responded, etc. And people tend to take very select passages from these stories and apply them like stickers onto what they think should be sins. I can't find anything in the Bible other than certain listed meats considered "unclean" at the time, to justify not eating meat. But, if I did, I would do my best to not eat meat, plain and simple. I don't watch footage of slaughterhouses, but then again, I wouldn't watch a farmer doing it one-on-one either. Everything dies. God tells us not to be cruel to animals, though, and so I do refrain from buying things from companies I know are cruel to their animals. I live in a smaller area, too, so I know where my meat and dairy products come from, and I've toured the place and they're good to their animals. They even get back rubs lol. Wish I could get a daily back rub, i'd let them milk me too. If you don't believe in God, why would you want to spend eternity with him anyway?


----------



## rmx (May 11, 2012)

Thanks for understanding, Wednesday. Good reply 

Now, we may not agree on the meat issue, but:

*

"He didn't say no marijuana, because it's not going to kill anyone, and it's not going to hurt anything."​


*I stand by you on that one. I can't see any God condemning the use of weed, especially as "He" placed it here! We make homes with wood, we eat millions of tons of fruit and vegetables, we utilise hemp and cotton and countless other plants to build the world around us, and almost every medicine in existence is plant based. Then there's marijuana. This wonderful plant, less harmful than a beer or a cigarette, and proven to heal far more than it harms... Yet the government call us criminals for consuming and cultivating it. Aren't most US politicians religious? They seem very out of touch with their beliefs! It really is all about the money with these clowns.


----------



## Wednesday (May 11, 2012)

rmx said:


> Thanks for understanding, Wednesday. Good reply
> 
> Now, we may not agree on the meat issue, but:
> 
> ...


Ya, I definitely agree there. I think people worry about it because they're told so often that marijuana is a drug and drugs are bad and all that stuff. But I think if it's a natural growing plant then God knew what he was doing when he made it.


----------



## Finshaggy (May 14, 2012)

Sin?!?

Closer to prayer. Or "Receiving blessing".


----------



## Ringsixty (May 14, 2012)

it is a sin in the feds eyes.


----------



## Finshaggy (May 14, 2012)

Ringsixty said:


> it is a sin in the feds eyes.


But not murder in the name of a badge, so why should we care what they think?


----------



## Davidsnow (May 17, 2012)

My friend always argues that there's a passage in the bible where God says that you must follow the laws of the land you're on (as in follow your government/leaders...which......seems like god wouldn't want that because he asks us not to follow false idols). I don't know the name of the passage or anything like that, but I think it's all bullshit.


----------



## Finshaggy (May 17, 2012)

Davidsnow said:


> My friend always argues that there's a passage in the bible where God says that you must follow the laws of the land you're on (as in follow your government/leaders...which......seems like god wouldn't want that because he asks us not to follow false idols). I don't know the name of the passage or anything like that, but I think it's all bullshit.


Jesus did say that.
But he didn't mean it like that, or he wouldn't have done what he did. Like, seriously Jesus is THE rebel.


----------



## BigJon (May 18, 2012)

Finshaggy said:


> Jesus did say that.
> But he didn't mean it like that, or he wouldn't have done what he did. Like, seriously Jesus is THE rebel.


Did Jesus say it or did Paul write it? I'm not sure myself. 

What I do know is that you're right about homie being a rebel.

"Give to Cesar what is Cesars, and give to God what is God's."


----------



## Finshaggy (May 18, 2012)

BigJon said:


> Did Jesus say it or did Paul write it? I'm not sure myself.
> 
> What I do know is that you're right about homie being a rebel.
> 
> "Give to Cesar what is Cesars, and give to God what is God's."


I'm pretty sure it was Jesus, but we can never be sure at all. Since Jesus seems to have been illiterate (Didn't write SHIT)... even though he was full of old Jewish written wisdom from a prophet about 200 years before himself...

For some reason the Disciples were the only ones that wrote down anything Jesus said.

The only other record of Jesus in ANYONES records, is Roman Records: "Fueding between the Jews"


----------



## Finshaggy (May 18, 2012)

And did ya'll know the Jews didn't accept Jesus as Christ because he WASN'T.


Jews (The ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS) Christ is a Warlord, that will bring them back to the promise land. Jesus just said some nice stuff, that's it. He didn't get Israel back.


----------



## coffeesick (May 18, 2012)

Seed bearing plants are part of dietary laws, but apparently drunkards and intoxicants will make you burn in hell....who cares though right, nobody follows the dietary laws anyway.


----------



## Finshaggy (May 18, 2012)

coffeesick said:


> Seed bearing plants are part of dietary laws, but apparently drunkards and intoxicants will make you burn in hell....who cares though right, nobody follows the dietary laws anyway.


There was no real concept of hell pre "Dark Ages".


----------



## VILEPLUME (May 22, 2012)

abandonconflict said:


> OK first off, this thread isn't the place for bashing any religion. Please, leave opinions about the religion overall out of this. I would like to hear BIBLICAL arguments, for or against the use of cannabis. Does Christianity consider it a sin?
> 
> I happen to be an atheist, but I am curious nonetheless if a case can be made, within the scope of biblical cannon, that it is not at all a sin to partake of the mota. If you believe it is, by all means, expound. All I ask is that we respect each other's beliefs.


As a Christian growing up I thought it was a sin. I still kind of do, but only if it leads to addiction. The thing is there are a lot of other things that are much more addictive that Christians use, like caffeine, fatty food, etc. I try to explain to other Christians that these things actually kill a lot of people in America each year, mainly obesity. But I think not just in Christianity, but in society we view all "drugs" as being really bad for you and they all got grouped up together. Most people do not spend the time looking into the medicinal side of weed that shows no brain damage or lung cancer or it making you a crazy murderer.

I also think a lot of Christians don't care to look into it further. I never really cared either tbh until I started taking it for pain.

Now does it actually say anywhere in the bible that smoking weed is a sin? No, but a lot of people could interpret it that way because of addiction.

If you are looking for a specific verse to say to another Christian, I would go with Matthew 7:1,2 - Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Anyways hope this helps, GL.


----------



## Ringsixty (May 22, 2012)

not a sin
show me where in the bible does it say. "marijuana is a sin"


----------



## sworth (May 22, 2012)

Finshaggy said:


> There was no real concept of hell pre "Dark Ages".


What about the Indo European (Norse/Angle/Saxon...etc) "Hel" (correct spelling)
The Greeks' Hades?
Maybe not places of eternal agony etc, but certainly places of the dead that ain't no fun...?


----------



## Finshaggy (May 22, 2012)

sworth said:


> What about the Indo European (Norse/Angle/Saxon...etc) "Hel" (correct spelling)
> The Greeks' Hades?
> Maybe not places of eternal agony etc, but certainly places of the dead that ain't no fun...?


"Hel" was a deity I think. And even the land she ruled over differed from the Christian "Hell".
But what I meant was, there was just purgatory until Jesus unlocked heaven, and Hell was invented in the Dark ages.


----------



## sworth (May 22, 2012)

But what's "purgatory" then? 
Hell as a place of punishment (as opposed to a state of "non bliss") to anyone with an ounce (lid?)of compassion is ,imo, ludicrous, but I think it is a post dark age concept. 
This kind of 'punishment/control' thinking started with Emperor Constantine...and the whole rise of the orthodox Christian church ?
And every place one reads "hell" in the Bible it is actually correctly translated as "gehenna" or "hel".Gehenna (spelling?) being pretty much Jerusalem's burning rubbish tip of the time, and Hel (as in a Greek concept) as merely a place of the dead. 
Which is where we are both saying the same thing with differing words?
"HELL" ;does not exist!!??
When did Jesus unlock Heaven? According to my calculations you have Hell and Purgatory double booked..
Anyway, you and I concur genericly; there is no Hell.
A state of non-existence then?
That'd be hell for you or I I wager!
(Am I still talking?...Bloody hell! (Pun intended!) I may grow more Sativas!!! lol!!
Edit;Hel A deity and a place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(location) 
Odin rides down to Hel on "*Sleipnir*", his 8 legged horse, to bring his murdered Son back from the dead!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir


----------



## cannabineer (May 22, 2012)

sworth said:


> But what's "purgatory" then?
> Hell as a place of punishment (as opposed to a state of "non bliss") to anyone with an ounce (lid?)of compassion is ,imo, ludicrous, but I think it is a post dark age concept.
> This kind of 'punishment/control' thinking started with Emperor Constantine...and the whole rise of the orthodox Christian church ?
> And every place one reads "hell" in the Bible it is actually correctly translated as "gehenna" or "hel".Gehenna (spelling?) being pretty much Jerusalem's burning rubbish tip of the time, and Hel (as in a Greek concept) as merely a place of the dead.
> ...


The idea of a nasty hell is very very old. cn
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hell.htm


----------



## Islam (May 22, 2012)

Not a sin at all! Cannabis' benefits outweigh the negatives (none)

If it kills cancer and produces new brain cells, why should it be a sin to use it?

Culture tampers with religion, they don't go together. 

I don't know which religious group you belong to, but in our Quran, cannabis is never mentioned.

Based on the Quran: 

Alcohol consumption is a sin: because it kills brain cells, turns you into something you're not, hurts your organs, etc...
Consumption of pork is a sin: science shows pigs have weak immune systems that don't digest food properly and they eat filth- that is then stored in their tissue.
Adultery is a huge sin because you know why.
stealing is a sin
etc..
etc...

Nowhere is good old cannabis mentioned as being bad. So go for it! If you're Christian, it's allowed too. Not sure about Judaism, but it's practically the same, so I think it's allowed with them too.


----------



## BA142 (May 23, 2012)

Based on the Qur'an all people that don't believe in Allah should be killed lol


----------



## crazyhazey (May 24, 2012)

im sorry if i offend any religious people in the next few sentences.
if you go to books that have been altered over thousands of years to find advice on harmless drugs, your looking in the absolute wrong place, you couldnt be looking in a worse place. religion is just another part of culture, a way to make your views on life less open, culture and religion restrict your mind from believing outside beliefs. hard headed religious people arent the people who are fit to judge what is a sin, or in more simplistic words, whats right "in the eyes of god". remember, theres thousands of "gods" that religions believe in, all religions stole from another religion and tweaked the story a bit, and dont get me started on how false these books have been proven to be... if there wasnt a new testament who knows what the fuckin catholics would be doing to people nowadays. anyone looking into ancient texts asking for knowledge on whats morally right is close minded, what is right to you is wrong to others but nobody can judge whats right. science is how you should determine which drugs are okay, not this propaganda we call the bible, quaran or whatever book you name, they're all another way to separate people and create conflict, take a look a jerusalem if you think religion is good.


----------



## scroglodyte (May 24, 2012)

Odin told me, through runes, that its not a sin. you may still enter Valhalla.
by Thor's hammer, i swear.


----------



## Islam (May 24, 2012)

BA142 said:


> Based on the Qur'an all people that don't believe in Allah should be killed lol


False.

&#8220;Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.&#8221; (Quran 2:256)


----------



## Finshaggy (Dec 27, 2012)

The Christians were stoned as shit. Angels, Burning Bushes and "Jesus' teachings". They were blazed.


----------



## high|hgih (Dec 28, 2012)

No, and who cares if it is... This is what google says the entire list of sins is. And I think that I probably sin about every 5 minutes or so. 

1. *ABORTION*​Ex 21:22-25; Jere 1:4,52. NOT *ABSTAINING* FROM ALL APPEARANCE OF EVIL​1 Thes 5:223. *ACCUSING*​Jude 9; 2 Pe 2:114. NOT *ACKNOWLEDGING* THINE INIQUITY​Jere 3:135. *ADULTERY* ​ Mt 19:18; Gen 39:7-9; Ex 20:14  Penalty for both involved is death​Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10-12  To look on a woman to lust is adultery​Mt 5:28; 2 Pe 2:146. *AFRAID* of people or circumstances​Ps 112:77. *AFRAID* TO CONFESS JESUS TO PEOPLE​Jn 12:428.

 UNJUSTIFIED *ANGER* (WRATHS)

​Pv 27:4; 29:22; Ex 6:9; 2 Cor 12:209. *ANGRY* WITH YOUR BROTHER​Mt 5:2210. *ANXIOUS*​Phili 4:6 NIV11.

 *ARGUING

*​Pv 17:14; 18:6; Titus 3:9; 2 Tim 2:2312.

 *ARROGANCE* (SWELLINGS) (PROUD)

​Mk 7:22 NIV; Isa 2:17,11 NIV; Ro 1:30; 2 Cor 11:20; Isa 13:1113. *ASHAMED*, HIDING YOUR LIGHT FOR JESUS​Mt 5:14-16; Lk 9:26; Ro 10:1114. A*SHAMED* OF JESUS AND HIS WORDS​Mk 8:3815. *ASSAULT*​Ex 21:18,19; Acts 14:516.

 *ASTROLOGY

*​Deut 4:19; 17:3-7; Isa 47:13,14; Acts 7:42; Ezek 8:16  Penalty for astrology is death ​Deut 17:717. VAIN *BABBLINGS*​1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:1618. *BACKBITING*​Ps 15:1-319. REFUSED TO BE *BAPTIZED*​Lk 7:29,3020. *BAPTIZED* BEFORE BELIEVING ON JESUS​Acts 8:36,3721. NOT *BELIEVING* ON NAME OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST​1 Jn 3:23 *BIBLE-*SEE THE HEADING OF* "WORD"*​22.

 *BITTERNESS

*​Acts 8:23; Ro 3:14; Eph 4:31; Heb 12:1523. *BLASPHEMOUS*​Mk 7:22; Jude 1024. *BLASPHEMY* AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST​Mk 3:29; Lk 12:10  Never forgiven, the unforgivable sin​Mt 12:3125. *NOT BLESSING* THEM THAT CURSE YOU​Lk 6:2826. NOT *BLESSING* THEM WHICH PERSECUTE YOU​Ro 12:1427.

 A PERSON THAT LEADS THE *BLIND* ASTRAY
IS CURSED​Deut 27:18; Mt 23:16

28. EATING *BLOOD*​1Sam 14:3329. *BOASTING* IS EVIL​Ja 4:16; 3:5; Ro 1:30


 + *BORN AGAIN*-A PERSON THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED FROM THE OLD SINFUL NATURE TO A SPIRIT LED NATURE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. HE HAS RECEIVED THE INDWELLING OF GODS SPIRIT AND HAS BECOME A CHANGED PERSON. HE HAS BECOME A CHILD OF GOD.(Mt 18:3; Mk 16:16; Jn 3:3; Acts 2:38; Ro ch 6 and 8; Col 2:12; Heb 5:9; 1Jn 5:.


 *(SINS AGAINST BORN-AGAIN CHILDREN OF GOD) 30 to 55*​ 30. *B*EING AGAINST A CHILD OF GOD​Ps 11:231. *C*AUSING A CHILD OF GOD TO SIN (GREAT SIN)​Mt 18:632. *D*ECEIVING A CHILD OF GOD​Eph 4:1433. *D*ESPISING ONE OF GODS CHILDREN​Mt 18:10  Is the same as despising God​Lk 10:1634.

 *E*NTICING A CHILD OF GOD TO TURN

​Deut 13:6-10; Acts 13:8-12; Acts 20:29-31  Penalty for enticing a child of God is death​Deut 13:6-1035.

 *E*NTICING A CHILD OF GOD THROUGH THEIR LUSTS
AND DESIRES​2 Pe 2:18

36. *H*INDERING OR BEATING GODS SERVANTS​Lk 12:4537. *J*UDGING GODS SERVANTS​Ro 14:4,1038. *L*AYING IN WAIT TO ACCUSE GODS SERVANTS​Lk 11:5439. *N*OT CLOTHING GODS CHILDREN THAT HAVE NEED​Mt 25:4340. *N*OT FEEDING GODS CHILDREN THAT ARE HUNGRY​Mt 25:4241. *N*OT RECEIVING A CHILD OF GOD SENT BY GOD​Mk 6:11; Mt 10:1442. *N*OT TAKING IN A HOMELESS CHILD OF GOD ​ Mt 25:43,45; 1 Tim 5:1043. *N*OT VISITING GODS CHILDREN THAT ARE SICK​Mt 25:4344. *N*OT VISITING GODS CHILDREN IN PRISON​Mt 25:4345. *O*FFENDING A CHILD OF GOD​Mk 9:4246. *P*ERSECUTING A CHILD OF GOD​Acts 9:1,4,547.

 *P*UTTING STUMBLING BLOCKS IN PATH OF GODS CHILDREN​Acts 15:1,2; Ro 14:13

48. *R*EFUSING TO HEAR GODS SERVANTS​1 Jn 4:649.

 *S*PEAKING AGAINST GODS CHILDREN

​Acts 21:28; Num 14:2,3,11; 16:350. *S*MITING GODS CHILDREN​Mt 24:4951. *S*OWING ANY FORM OF DISCORD AMONG GODS CHILDREN​Pv 6:16,1952. *T*HINKING EVIL IN YOUR HEART AGAINST GODS CHILDREN​Mt 9:453. *T*HREATENING GODS PEOPLE​Acts 9:1,4,5; Jn 9:22,28,3454. *T*OUCHING GODS SERVANTS​Acts 5:18,35,3955. *Z*EALOUS FOR GOD BUT HATE GODS CHILDREN​Acts 22:3,2256. *BREAKING* UP HOMES​Mt 19:6; 5:31,3257. ACCEPTING A *BRIBE*​Ex 23:8; Ps 26:1058. *BUSYBODIES* (meddling)​Pv 20:3; 1 Tim 5:1359. PUTTING *CARE*S OF THIS WORLD BEFORE GOD​Mk 4:19; Lk 8:14; 21:3460. BEING *CARNAL* OR WORLDLY​1 Cor 3:1-3; Ro 8:6-861. NOT HAVING *CHARITY*​1 Cor 13:262. NOT ENDURING GODS *CHASTENING*​Heb 12:7,863.

 NOT BECOMING AS A LITTLE *CHILD* BEFORE GOD (NOT HUMBLING YOURSELF)​Mt 18:3

64. NOT SPANKING A DISOBEDIENT *CHILD*​Pv 13:2465. FATHERS PROVOKING THEIR *CHILDREN* TO WRATH​Eph 6:466.

 NOT BRINGING *CHILDREN* UP IN TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION OF THE LORD​Eph 6:4 NIV

 *CHRISTIAN*-SEE BORN-AGAIN​67.

 NOT GOING TO *CHURCH* OR ASSEMBLING TOGETHER

​Heb 10:25; Acts 2:46; 
Ecc 4:9-1268. GOING TO THE *CHURCH* OF THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS​Rev 17:5; 18:4,5 *(SINS PERTAINING TO CLOTHING) 69 to 74*​ 69. WEARING THE *C*LOTHING OF THE OPPOSITE SEX​Deut 22:570. *D*RESSING INDECENTLY​1 Tim 2:9; Pv 7:1071.

 *L*OVE FANCY CLOTHING TO SHOW OFF-TO BE ADMIRED BY MEN​Mk 12:38

72.

 *W*OMEN-BEAUTY THAT COMES FROM WEARING GOLD JEWELRY​1 Pe 3:3

73. *W*OMEN-THAT DO NOT DRESS MODESTLY​1 Tim 2:974.

 *W*OMEN-THAT ADORN THEMSELVES WITH GOLD, PEARLS, COSTLY ARRAY​1 Tim 2:9

75. DISOBEYING GODS *COMMANDMENTS*​1 Jn 2:376. TAKE *COMMUNION* BUT HAVE SIN IN YOUR LIFE (CURSED)​1 Cor 11:29,3077. NOT HAVING *COMPASSION*​1 Pe 3:878. *COMPLAINERS*​Jude 1679. *COMPLAINING* ABOUT HARDSHIPS​Num 11:1 NIV80. *COMPLAINING* ABOUT WHAT YOU DO NOT HAVE​Num 11:4-6; 21:581. *CONCEITED* (PRIDE)​1 Tim 3:6; 2 Tim 3:2,482. *CONDEMNING*​Lk 6:3783. *CONTEMNS* GOD​Ps 10:1384. *CONTEMPT*​Pv 23:22; Mt 18:10; Ro 14:385. NOT BEING *CONTENT* WITH WHAT YOU HAVE​Heb 13:5 *(SINS PERTAINING TO CONVERSATION) 86 TO 111*​ 86. SPEAKING *B*OASTFUL WORDS​2 Pe 2:18 NIV87. NOT *B*RIDLING (keeping a tight rein) HIS TONGUE​Ja 1:26 *C*ONVERSATION-ALSO SEE TONGUE​88.

 *C*ONVERSATION THAT DOES NOT BECOME JESUS
(THE GOSPEL)​Phili 1:27

89. *C*ONVERSATION ACCORDING TO THE DECEITFUL LUSTS​Eph 4:2290. *C*ORRUPT CONVERSATION​Eph 4:2991. *C*OVETOUSNESS CONVERSATION​Heb 13:592. *C*RAFTY CONVERSATION​Job 15: 4-693. *D*OUBLE-TONGUED​1 Tim 3:894. SPEAKING *E*VIL ABOUT GODS WORD​Acts 19:995. SPEAKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLES *E*VIL​Eph 5:11,1296. SPEAKING *E*VIL OF BROTHERS (ONE OF ANOTHER)​Ja 4:1197. SPEAKING *E*VIL OF DIGNITIES​Jude 898. SPEAKING *E*VIL OR GUILE​1Pe 2:1; 3:10; Ps 34:1399. *F*ILTHY CONVERSATION​Col 3:8100. *F*OOLISH CONVERSATION​Eph 5:4101. BIDDING *G*OD SPEED TO CHRIST REJECTING PEOPLE​2 Jn 11102. *H*ASTY IN WORDS​Pv 29:20103. *N*OT BEING SLOW TO SPEAK​Ja 1:19104. *N*OT BEING MEEK AND QUIET​1 Pe 3:4  Every idle wordthey shall give account thereof ​Mt 12:36105. *P*ROUD SPEECH​Ps 17:10106. *S*PEAKING THINGS THEY OUGHT NOT​1 Tim 5:13107. TURNING TO *V*AIN JANGLING (MEANINGLESS TALK)​1 Tim 1:6108. PARTAKING OF *V*AIN WORDS​Eph 5:6,7; Jonah 2:8109. SAYING I WILL GO, I WILL BUY, BUT NOT IF GOD *W*ILL​Ja 4:13-17110. PROFESSING TO BE *W*ISE (PRIDE)​Ro 1:22111. BEING INVOLVED IN *W*IVES FABLES​1 Tim 4:7112. *CONTENTION* (STRIFE)​Pv 17:14113. NOT BEING *CONVERTED*-PERISH​Mt 18:3114. DESPISING *CORRECTION*​Heb 12:5115. REFUSING *CORRECTION*-PERISH​Jere 5:3,4116. REFUSING TO SEPARATE FROM FALSE *COUNSEL*​Pv 19:27117. SEEKING *COUNSEL* THAT IS NOT OF GOD​Isa 30:1118. TURNING TO FALSE *COUNSEL* (FABLES)​2 Tim 4:4119. WALKING IN *COUNSEL* OF UNSAVED​Ps 1:1  The advice of the unsaved is deceitful​Pv 12:5120. NOT BEING *COURTEOUS*​1 Pe 3:8121.

 *COVETOUSNESS*-AN INSATIABLE DESIRE FOR WORLDLY GAIN​Hab 2:9

122. *COVETOUSNESS*-DESIRE NEIGHBORS THINGS​Mk 7:22; Ex 20:17; Ezek 33:31  Covetousness is idolatry​Col 3:5; Eph 5:5123. *CRAFTINES*S​2 Cor 4:2124.

 BIDDING *CULTS*, GOD SPEED OR WELCOMING THEM INTO YOUR HOUSE​2 Jn 10,11

125. *CURSING*​Ro 3:14; Ps 10:7; 59:12126. *CURSING* THE LORDS NAME​Ex 20:7  Penalty for cursing the Lords name is death​Lev 24:16127. *CURSING* THE RICH​Ecc 10:20128. *CURSING* MEN​Ja 3:9129. *DEBATE*​Ro 1:29130. MAKING BAD *DEBTS*​Ro 13:8131. NOT PAYING WHAT YOU OWE (*DEBTS*)​Mt 5:26132. HOLDING FAST TO *DECEIT* (LIGHT IN YOU IS DARKNESS)​Jere 8:5; Mk 7:22133. WORKING *DECEIT*​Ps 101:7; 10:7; 35:20134. *DECEITFUL*​2 Cor 11:13; Ro 1:29135. *DECEIVING* YOUR NEIGHBOR​Jere 9:5,6136. *DEFRAUDING* OTHERS​Lev 19:13; 1 Thes 4:6137. NOT *DELIGHTING* YOURSELF IN THE LORD​Ps 37:4138. *DESIRE* SINFUL WAYS​Lk 5:39139. *DESPISING*​1 Thes 4:8140. *DESPISING* DOMINION (AUTHORITY)​Jude 8141. *DESPISING* GODS SERVANTS​Lk 10:16
 CLIC


----------



## Digger Dave (Dec 31, 2012)

It just could be that aliens brought the plants and not just seeds,we are all from the same place.


----------



## nameno (Jan 2, 2013)

This has been on my mind for a few years. I do not believe in religion,I do believe in the trinity and every word in the BIBLE.My relationship with JESUS is what is important to me.Cannabis has so much good about it,and it was mentioned in the BIBLE,it was in the annoiting oil that I wonder if we had spent the time on cannabis that we spent on the pills(that are killing us) where would we be now.Back to the question,No I do not think cannabis use is a sin. Abuse is another story.


----------



## bde0001 (Jan 2, 2013)

wow i did not know cannabis was in the annoiting oil...thansk for that


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Jan 7, 2013)

abandonconflict said:


> OK first off, this thread isn't the place for bashing any religion. Please, leave opinions about the religion overall out of this. I would like to hear BIBLICAL arguments, for or against the use of cannabis. Does Christianity consider it a sin?
> 
> I happen to be an atheist, but I am curious nonetheless if a case can be made, within the scope of biblical cannon, that it is not at all a sin to partake of the mota. If you believe it is, by all means, expound. All I ask is that we respect each other's beliefs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElVvGjO-kdI


----------



## ckrescho (Jan 7, 2013)

GentlemanCheese said:


> Nah man, it says in the bible that you're suppose to obey the law, but not if it intervenes with what god says, and in the bible god says it's okay in a few different verses. A lot of "Christians" that state that they're Christian, don't know shit about the religion and open their big mouth about things they haven't actually read, just shit they've been told by uninformed figureheads.


I would like to know where it says that.


----------



## MikeHarrington (Jan 8, 2013)

Somewhere in the bible it says something like, "I give you every seed bearing herb," so I would assume that would be an OK from God. I'm also an Athiest, and I also find this interesting.


----------



## kevin (Jan 8, 2013)

I didn't see anything in *THE EIGHT I'D REALLY RATHER YOU DIDN'TS.



**[url]http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474976877085*[/URL]


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 9, 2013)

I try to live by this rule: anything out of moderation is a sin. This is not only supported Biblically, it is the Law of Nature. Look at Fire and Water: both of these can kill, yet are required for life to exist. Humans must find the balance of moderation, doing their best to refrain from over indulging.

I see MJ as no different than using any Herb on the Planet. Coffee, Tea, Aspirin, Narcotics, Sugar, Wine, all of these and more come from plants. The Key is, do your best not to go overboard in ANYTHING, including your Faith.

If someone is sitting on their ass all day long, stoned out of their mind and waiting for a Welfare Check, they may consider some changes in their life.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 9, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> I try to live by this rule: anything out of moderation is a sin. This is not only supported Biblically, it is the Law of Nature. Look at Fire and Water: both of these can kill, yet are required for life to exist. Humans must find the balance of moderation, doing their best to refrain from over indulging.
> 
> I see MJ as no different than using any Herb on the Planet. Coffee, Tea, Aspirin, Narcotics, Sugar, Wine, all of these and more come from plants. The Key is, do your best not to go overboard in ANYTHING, including your Faith.
> 
> If someone is sitting on their ass all day long, stoned out of their mind and waiting for a Welfare Check, they may consider some changes in their life.


Technically however a sin is a violation against a divine or supreme entity. Nature is neither, as it is not an entity. I question the applicability of the word sin in this instance. cn


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 9, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Technically however a sin is a violation against a divine or supreme entity. Nature is neither, as it is not an entity. I question the applicability of the word sin in this instance. cn


God gave us Nature to understand wrong doing. It's that simple. Do right, you and I will reap the benefits. Do wrong, the same applies. You reap what you sow.

Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 9, 2013)

Romans 1:20 is a part of the NT that I find utterly offensive in its bald-faced falsity. It translates as "God is obvious in Nature, and if y'all can't see it, you are idiots". Total appeal to vanity to hide the absence of a demonstrable point. Interestingly, 2000 years of delving into nature have shown that it isn't and never was that simple. On Romans 1:20 alone the tyranny of the book can be broken. Jmo. cn


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Jan 9, 2013)

This is outragious!


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 9, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Romans 1:20 is a part of the NT that I find utterly offensive in its bald-faced falsity. It translates as "God is obvious in Nature, and if y'all can't see it, you are idiots". Total appeal to vanity to hide the absence of a demonstrable point. Interestingly, 2000 years of delving into nature have shown that it isn't and never was that simple. On Romans 1:20 alone the tyranny of the book can be broken. Jmo. cn


I completely disagree with your premise. You probably don't like that passage because it defies Homosexuality. I still find the application of Nature a valid one, mainly because I'm a doubting Thomas. I need to see the facts, not the bullshit of someone's idea that is based off of a specific Religion. 

Nature is a direct gauge of our actions, good or evil. Do you believe in Global Warming?


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 9, 2013)

Forgive, but how-on-Earth does Romans 1:20 have anything to do with homosexuality? It has to do with the idea that Nature proves God's existence and basic properties by simple observation. This idea has not held up under scrutiny. It is one of the plainly wrong things in scripture, and conceals its plain wrongness under the threat of calling dissenters "without excuse" in your translation. cn


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 9, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Forgive, but how-on-Earth does Romans 1:20 have anything to do with homosexuality? It has to do with the idea that Nature proves God's existence and basic properties by simple observation. This idea has not held up under scrutiny. It is one of the plainly wrong things in scripture, and conceals its plain wrongness under the threat of calling dissenters "without excuse" in your translation. cn


First, it's obvious you haven't read the verses that follow Romans 1:20. Do that, then come back and make a valid comment regarding what I said.

Second, you didn't answer my question about Global Warming.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 9, 2013)

I have read the book from cover to cover. My comment is valid. Romans 1:20 assumes as axiom that God is plain in Nature. This is incorrect, as evidenced e.g. by the almost limiting diversity of human religious thought. 

Your question about global warming is not germane to the point. Especially asking me if I "believe" in it. I don't need to believe or disbelieve. Global warming will (or will not) take place entirely in the material world and is thus in the proper purview of science. I don't need to believe or disbelieve in it, only to wait. cn


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 9, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I have read the book from cover to cover. My comment is valid. Romans 1:20 assumes as axiom that God is plain in Nature. This is incorrect, as evidenced e.g. by the almost limiting diversity of human religious thought.
> 
> Your question about global warming is not germane to the point. Especially asking me if I "believe" in it. I don't need to believe or disbelieve. Global warming will (or will not) take place entirely in the material world and is thus in the proper purview of science. I don't need to believe or disbelieve in it, only to wait. cn


You are still avoiding the point(s) by your play on words. In fact, you are not making much sense. You keep diverting away from valid questions and comments, which proves your ignorance. 

Religion is man-made. Creation is not. This is why Creation is our greatest Teacher, as Humanity relies on vision to validate the truth. Creation corners every Religion into accountability, UNLESS, they refuse to base truth on the "seen", living in the bondage of the unseen.

Since you've read the Bible from cover to cover, then why did you say that you didn't see how Romans 1:20 relates to Homosexuality? Another point proving your ignorance. Any valid Scholar or Credentialed Bible teacher understands that this verse directly ties into to the remaining 12 verses.

Asking you about Global Warming does tie directly into my argument, and you know it does! I don't give a shit if you believe in it, like a Religion or some other dumb ass idea, but you must have an opinion of some kind regarding if it's the truth or not. IS GLOBAL WARMING REAL????? Yes or No?

Gobal Warming is the direct result of a Society that is not balanced with moderation.


----------



## 420IAMthatIAM (Jan 9, 2013)

ckrescho said:


> I would like to know where it says that.


1Co 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.


----------



## Sand4x105 (Jan 9, 2013)

Do you know the difference between "Adultery" and "Fornication"
Me neither, I have tried them both....they felt the same to me...
Sin is something you believe to be wrong...
Take you a glass a water, make it against the law... see how good the water tastes, when you can't have any at all...
Many years ago....I heard a Guest Youth Preacher say these words from the pulpit:
"If you can not get down on your knees, and ask God, to bless what ever you are about to do, then it must be wrong, and a sin"
...
...
2 minutes later....

OK, I got down on my knees, prayed about it...and got back up lit it and it was good....
The Lord blesses my MJ... Sometimes, when I almost run out.... I find a bag under the couch, or between some sox in my sock drawer...
Coincidence or sign and gift from God? I say, God works in mysterious ways !

My X would get mad and scared when I would break out in Prayer, and words to God....
I'd just say, I am praising him, IN ALL THINGS.... 
Then she'd say something stupid, like "You're gonna burn...."
I'd just re-tort: "I serve a God with a sense of humor, sorry your god is a hard ass..."
She'd just shake her head and walk away....
Thank you Lord for all the goodness you bestow on me...
Thanks for keeping my plants healthy...
Praise be to God on the highest !
Amen....

It's all good !


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 11, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> You are still avoiding the point(s) by your play on words. In fact, you are not making much sense. You keep diverting away from valid questions and comments, which proves your ignorance.
> 
> Religion is man-made. Creation is not. This is why Creation is our greatest Teacher, as Humanity relies on vision to validate the truth. Creation corners every Religion into accountability, UNLESS, they refuse to base truth on the "seen", living in the bondage of the unseen.
> 
> ...


This valid, credentialed guy disagrees with you, and without the patronizing tone. Verse 20 is not about homosexuality in any way, but about the claim that God is demonstrable in the observable world, what you call Creation. And this has not been shown true by anyone. 
http://carm.org/does-romans-1-condemn-homosexuality

Romans 1:20 is a restatement of Psalm 19:1-2, which says &#8220;The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.&#8221; 
Imo this is one of those moments when the Bible descends into an orgy of unsupported doctrine. And when it does that, it seriously harms the idea that this is a divine text. In all this time, we have not found one bit of repeatable natural observation that supports either the NT or OT claim. 

And that sticks in the craw of any who want to assert that the Bible is correct. My opinion.

As to global warming: do i believe it is possible? Definitely. Do i think it's happening? The data say "probably" but are noisy enough that we cannot cleanly winkle out the causative agents from the first-order effects. Can I determine how much of it is anthropogenic? No. I can make educated guesses but no declarations. Do i see it as a sign of "a society not balanced with moderation?" No, since 1) I cannot find a definition for that phrase, and 2) I have no evidence that the imbalance is a cause and not an effect, if it is indeed so. I counsel against confusing cause for effect for something something that might be neither. So ... what information about me does that answer, which I consider the best honest answer i can give, tell you about me? cn


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 12, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> This valid, credentialed guy disagrees with you, and without the patronizing tone. Verse 20 is not about homosexuality in any way, but about the claim that God is demonstrable in the observable world, what you call Creation. And this has not been shown true by anyone.
> http://carm.org/does-romans-1-condemn-homosexuality
> 
> Romans 1:20 is a restatement of Psalm 19:1-2, which says The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
> ...


I'm going to read between the lines; you're defending Homosexuality in Scripture. If that's the case, IMO, your interpretation is entirely corrupt. Again, Nature proves that Human Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, and Romans 1 does defend my view clearly. Nature and Scripture, including the Old Testament, reveal the danger and result of this lifestyle. The Apologetics article you posted is Pro Gay, so they have an agenda to prove because of blinded sympathy. People twist the Scripture into their personal agenda instead of just reading it for what it is. Sexual perversion is polluting our planet with false ideas that will play out in Nature, and Mankind will reap what he sows.

What you're doing is exactly what the Scribes and Pharisees did; they twisted the Scripture into vain Laws that caused blindness to the Truth. Using Nature to help us understand is God's perfect way, as this was all that people had before the Cannon. Even when a written Word was available, the main populace had no access to it like we do today. Men and Women relied on the handiwork of the Great Creator for Divine Truth, as the oldest book of the Bible was written after man had been on Earth for 3000 years.

Hollywood, Politics, and even Religion are pressuring the World to accept this behavior, but Nature says, NO! Men with Men=no Children, and, this sexual liberty will lead to further diabolical perversions and diseases.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 14, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> I'm going to read between the lines; you're defending Homosexuality in Scripture. If that's the case, IMO, your interpretation is entirely corrupt. Again, Nature proves that Human Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, and Romans 1 does defend my view clearly. Nature and Scripture, including the Old Testament, reveal the danger and result of this lifestyle. The Apologetics article you posted is Pro Gay, so they have an agenda to prove because of blinded sympathy. People twist the Scripture into their personal agenda instead of just reading it for what it is. Sexual perversion is polluting our planet with false ideas that will play out in Nature, and Mankind will reap what he sows.
> 
> What you're doing is exactly what the Scribes and Pharisees did; they twisted the Scripture into vain Laws that caused blindness to the Truth. Using Nature to help us understand is God's perfect way, as this was all that people had before the Cannon. Even when a written Word was available, the main populace had no access to it like we do today. Men and Women relied on the handiwork of the Great Creator for Divine Truth, as the oldest book of the Bible was written after man had been on Earth for 3000 years.
> 
> Hollywood, Politics, and even Religion are pressuring the World to accept this behavior, but Nature says, NO! Men with Men=no Children, and, this sexual liberty will lead to further diabolical perversions and diseases.


Your read between the lines is astray. i am not commenting on homosexuality one way or the other (even though it is true that I oppose scriptural arguments against, as well as scriptural arguments in general: they accept the authority of a troubled old book as somehow absolute). You claim that Nature shows homosexuality to be unnatural. How? I have seen it as part and parcel of nature, and the only arguments I have heard against are the usual and ineffective structural arguments. Y'know, tab A slot B sort of stuff. 

What I *am *condemning (and you are not touching) is the claim in both Romans and Psalms that nature reveals God unambiguously. I find that to be colossally wrong, and am a bit bemused by Saul/Paul's need to threaten an insult of the reader's intelligence rather than substantiate the point, say with an example. 

If you think Romans 1:20 is correct as it is written, _defend _it. Show me how a study of nature necessarily leads to the Judeo-Christian interpretation of theism. I do not think you can without cheating, i.e. invoking the word to defend the word. And that is the essence of a circular and thus useless argument. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 15, 2013)

...Hi, neer and gm. I was always under the impression that the invisible forces of God (visible by way of nature) are the 3 primary forces. Can't see 'em, but without 'em - no thing. They become visible in matter.

...is it worth studying particle physics to 'see' the typical varieties of interactions? What is 'natural' at an atomic level? I tend to think that the 'little stage' looks a bit like our 'big stage'...?

"so that people are without excuse" means (to me) that a person 'plays god' with their own 3 primaries of thought, voice and emotion. If the 'mother' is a willing creator, we should use caution with our thought, voice and e-motion. That's my interpretation of Romans 1:20.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 15, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...Hi, neer and gm. I was always under the impression that the invisible forces of God (visible by way of nature) are the 3 primary forces. Can't see 'em, but without 'em - no thing. They become visible in matter.
> 
> ...is it worth studying particle physics to 'see' the typical varieties of interactions? What is 'natural' at an atomic level? I tend to think that the 'little stage' looks a bit like our 'big stage'...?
> 
> "so that people are without excuse" means (to me) that a person 'plays god' with their own 3 primaries of thought, voice and emotion. If the 'mother' is a willing creator, we should use caution with our thought, voice and e-motion. That's my interpretation of Romans 1:20.


I will respect your act of pouring oil onto the water. I will nonetheless not quite restrain myself from opining that Romans 1:20 makes a rather positive statement that I don't agree is entirely amenable to your interpretation. I see it as saying something different and much less accepting than how you see it, and that opens the text to its stated prerogative: that of judgment by its own standards. My opinion. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 16, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I will respect your act of pouring oil onto the water. I will nonetheless not quite restrain myself from opining that Romans 1:20 makes a rather positive statement that I don't agree is entirely amenable to your interpretation. I see it as saying something different and much less accepting than how you see it, and that opens the text to its stated prerogative: that of judgment by its own standards. My opinion. cn



...with the last sentence, do you mean that we form our own judgement? I mean to say, that we're responsible for the judgement that always acts upon us?

...either way.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 16, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Your read between the lines is astray. i am not commenting on homosexuality one way or the other (even though it is true that I oppose scriptural arguments against, as well as scriptural arguments in general: they accept the authority of a troubled old book as somehow absolute). You claim that Nature shows homosexuality to be unnatural. How? I have seen it as part and parcel of nature, and the only arguments I have heard against are the usual and ineffective structural arguments. Y'know, tab A slot B sort of stuff.
> 
> What I *am *condemning (and you are not touching) is the claim in both Romans and Psalms that nature reveals God unambiguously. I find that to be colossally wrong, and am a bit bemused by Saul/Paul's need to threaten an insult of the reader's intelligence rather than substantiate the point, say with an example.
> 
> If you think Romans 1:20 is correct as it is written, _defend _it. Show me how a study of nature necessarily leads to the Judeo-Christian interpretation of theism. I do not think you can without cheating, i.e. invoking the word to defend the word. And that is the essence of a circular and thus useless argument. cn


Homosexuality defined by Nature: Male+Male=No Children. The Anus: Exit Only. Semen/Sperm: Made for the Egg of a Woman. Raising Children: the Balance of what made them (Male/Female) is gone. Naturally, Homosexuals cannot create a Family. Homosexuality leads to further, unnatural experimentation.

God being revealed in Nature is plain and obvious. In fact, it is so clear to me that I probably carry some of the beliefs/traditions of Native Americans. When God is respected and observed through Nature, we will return to ethical and protective ideals that will save our Planet and other Human Beings.

Nature is nothing more than the Fingerprint of a Creator, proving Balance, Math, Systems, and the miracle of Life. When we gaze into a fine Painting, we will discover that someone is responsible, and Nature is far more complex and beautiful than the finest Painting on Earth.

BTW, I never said I was a Christian.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 16, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Homosexuality defined by Nature: Male+Male=No Children. The Anus: Exit Only. Semen/Sperm: Made for the Egg of a Woman. Raising Children: the Balance of what made them (Male/Female) is gone. Naturally, Homosexuals cannot create a Family. Homosexuality leads to further, unnatural experimentation.


 Then why is the anus of both sexes an erogenous zone? You went right for the structural, tab A slot B argument that completely ignores that a reward mechanism has evolved to make anal sex ... natural.


> God being revealed in Nature is plain and obvious.


 With this I disagree. i cannot find even one feature of the natural world that requires an engaged divine principle. Nobody has succeeded at this. So I characterize that statement as not merely incorrect but maliciously so: a lie.


> In fact, it is so clear to me that I probably carry some of the beliefs/traditions of Native Americans. When God is respected and observed through Nature, we will return to ethical and protective ideals that will save our Planet and other Human Beings.





> Nature is nothing more than the Fingerprint of a Creator, proving Balance, Math, Systems, and the miracle of Life. When we gaze into a fine Painting, we will discover that someone is responsible, and Nature is far more complex and beautiful than the finest Painting on Earth.
> 
> BTW, I never said I was a Christian.


How can you be otherwise? Only Christians think that book, with its serious restrictions on what behavior is permitted, is true. Even the Muslims have a different go-to text. 

And have you considered the possibility that Nature does not share with a painting the quality of being created? To science's best knowledge to date, the universe happened, and we cannot find or define purpose in its coming into being. A claim that Nature is created must be made outside the bounds of science, which is in charge of anything revealed in Nature, or nature. Thus I conclude and repeat that Romans 1:20 has every hallmark of a vicious lie. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 17, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Homosexuality defined by Nature: Male+Male=No Children. The Anus: Exit Only. Semen/Sperm: Made for the Egg of a Woman. Raising Children: the Balance of what made them (Male/Female) is gone. Naturally, Homosexuals cannot create a Family. Homosexuality leads to further, unnatural experimentation.



Hrmm so by that logic, any time you have sex without the intention of pregnancy it is wrong. That would make everyone who has ever used a condom wrong; anyone who has ever pulled out; anyone who has ever masturbated; and anyone who has ever received oral sex.... pretty bland world you must live in, and apparently one where only males are homosexual. Your arguments are shortsighted and empty of merit.

What is unnatural experimentation?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 17, 2013)

...if y'all don't mind, it could be interpreted in the sense of 'Christ' being the 'spirit' present at moment of orgasm. The crucified Christ is the orgasm. Specially when you consider his 'motto', which is self-sacrifice. When that self-sacrifice happens, a human is going to be (in the right circumstances). So, the spirit of life is what all of us are experimenting with, imo. I'm quite sure this is why you'll find religious texts making of it a 'sacred' act.

...in terms of the origins of this thread. There are receptors in sperm - use of cannabis slows the motility of sperm. Does that lean toward it being a 'missing of the mark'?

(I don't like to hear that any more than anyone else) (Nothing is easy, or without its equal recompense - "measure for measure")


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 17, 2013)

Anyone who wants to base the purpose of their existence on honesty with self... must bare the pain of not knowing.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 17, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...if y'all don't mind, it could be interpreted in the sense of 'Christ' being the 'spirit' present at moment of orgasm. The crucified Christ is the orgasm. Specially when you consider his 'motto', which is self-sacrifice. When that self-sacrifice happens, a human is going to be (in the right circumstances). So, the spirit of life is what all of us are experimenting with, imo. I'm quite sure this is why you'll find religious texts making of it a 'sacred' act.
> 
> ...in terms of the origins of this thread. There are receptors in sperm - use of cannabis slows the motility of sperm. Does that lean toward it being a 'missing of the mark'?
> 
> (I don't like to hear that any more than anyone else) (Nothing is easy, or without its equal recompense - "measure for measure")


I am restraining a jape about the Second Coming. cn


----------



## st0wandgrow (Jan 17, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Homosexuality defined by Nature: Male+Male=No Children. The Anus: Exit Only. Semen/Sperm: Made for the Egg of a Woman. Raising Children: the Balance of what made them (Male/Female) is gone. Naturally, Homosexuals cannot create a Family. Homosexuality leads to further, unnatural experimentation.
> 
> God being revealed in Nature is plain and obvious. In fact, it is so clear to me that I probably carry some of the beliefs/traditions of Native Americans. When God is respected and observed through Nature, we will return to ethical and protective ideals that will save our Planet and other Human Beings.
> 
> ...



*"Homosexuality leads to further, unnatural experimentation."*

Really? Do you honestly believe that? Isn't sex just the manifestation of two peoples love for one another? If you have sex with a female, do you consider that experimentation? Intercourse? Making love?

If we accept that people are born straight, gay, bisexual, etc, then how does one act of love differ from others? How is one considered proper, and the other "unnatural experimentation"?


----------



## dashcues (Jan 17, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Then why is the anus of both sexes an erogenous zone? You went right for the structural, tab A slot B argument that completely ignores that a reward mechanism has evolved to make anal sex ... natural. With this I disagree. i cannot find even one feature of the natural world that requires an engaged divine principle. Nobody has succeeded at this. So I characterize that statement as not merely incorrect but maliciously so: a lie.
> 
> How can you be otherwise? Only Christians think that book, with its serious restrictions on what behavior is permitted, is true. Even the Muslims have a different go-to text.
> 
> And have you considered the possibility that Nature does not share with a painting the quality of being created? To science's best knowledge to date, the universe happened, and we cannot find or define purpose in its coming into being. A claim that Nature is created must be made outside the bounds of science, which is in charge of anything revealed in Nature, or nature. *Thus I conclude and repeat that Romans 1:20 has every hallmark of a vicious lie*. cn


Aaahhh....this tells me that you have read it.lol


----------



## FlightSchool (Jan 17, 2013)

This thread has broken me of going right to the last page of a long thread. 

I clicked Is cannabis a sin? I read anus, masturbation, babies and orgasms.

Starting back at Page 1 now.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 17, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Anyone who wants to base the purpose of their existence on honesty with self... must bare the pain of not knowing.


...strife, to 'know yourself' is the soul's (sole) purpose of philosophy. So, are you saying that a person has to go through unknowing to end up knowing? (oracle at delphi)


----------



## Kite High (Jan 17, 2013)

In my Universe its a sin to NOT use cannabis


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 17, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I am restraining a jape about the Second Coming. cn



...actually, you're 'bang' on  The second coming, or second birth, is based in the idea that your most potent creative potential is in 'that' juice. Retained, this is the 'life juice' that initiates the second birth. To be 'born again' (no, not _that_ kind of born again) is to create the 'solar man' (roughly stated - four bodies known as the physical, astral, mental and causal need to be 'developed'). Many levels of that, both ascending and descending. Pretty tough though, considering that holy books are written 'to' a person's consciousness, as opposed to their minds. Think of the clear mind that is needed to achieve it. Smoke is cloudy, but at present (at least for me) more or less necessary. It's a co-nun-drum.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 17, 2013)

_"Anyone who wants to base the purpose of their existence on honesty with self... must bare the pain of not knowing."_



eye exaggerate said:


> ...strife, to 'know yourself' is the soul's (sole) purpose of philosophy. So, are you saying that a person has to go through unknowing to end up knowing? (oracle at delphi)


No, you must accept not knowing and uncertainty, in order to be completely honest with yourself... and in turn in order to know yourself. This unknowing and uncertainty can be a very hard pain to bare indeed, but it must be endured if we wish to live our lives without the support of comforting fairy tales.

This can only be done if you wish to base the purpose of your existence on honesty with self.


Many people choose to base the purpose of their existence on other things, but just as we are all free to do and think what we please... many, many people, choose to base their purpose on something different. That is neither good, nor bad, it just is.

-Edited-


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 17, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> No, you must accept not knowing and uncertainty, in order to know yourself... in order to be completely honest with yourself.


...is there knowing in wisdom? Philosopher, "a lover of wisdom / sophia". Can you love something that you do not know?


----------



## Shannon Alexander (Jan 17, 2013)

Here is what I reckon..!


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 17, 2013)

Can you be honest with yourself... if you continuously tell yourself there is a god, when you aren't certain if there is one or not? 

No... but that's the price we pay for being honest with ourselves, uncertainty is the price we must pay.

Too many cannot bare the pain of uncertainty... of not knowing, so they choose a different path. That is no more or less good or bad than any other path anyone walks. 

We all deal with life in our own way, we all deal with uncertainty in our own way. We can pretend uncertainty isn't there, pretend we know, pretend we have the answers... or we can be honest with ourselves. Neither way is good or bad, nor better or worse.

I just think it takes more courage to choose to base the purpose of ones existence on honesty with self, that is my opinion and holds no more merit than anyone else's opinion.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 17, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Can you be honest with yourself... if you continuously tell yourself there is a god, when you aren't certain if there is one or not?
> 
> No... but that's the price we pay for being honest with ourselves, uncertainty is the price we must pay.
> 
> ...



...strife, you have missed my point. Philosophy is a component 'toward' knowledge. So, yes, you can 'know'. Until you have zero attachments, you can't know. Attachments aren't necessarily physical. They are any one thing that defines you, something you've identified with - something that causes one of the 7 'evil' heads to flare its nostrils (in defense of what you've identified with). God is a person, by extension a people. Do things that benefit the other people in your life _only_, and you'll know God. Dependent Origination. That is the price of living.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 17, 2013)

Until you release your attachment to certainties about god, souls, an afterlife.... then the purpose of your life is not based on honesty with self, it is based on something entirely different. Like i said before, this is neither good nor bad... it is merely your decision, nothing more, nothing less.

We must all walk our own path through life, just because you choose differently than i do, does not make you any more or less of who you are, it just makes you who you are.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 17, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Until you release your attachment to certainties about god, souls, an afterlife.... then the purpose of your life is not based on honesty with self, it is based on something entirely different. Like i said before, this is neither good nor bad... it is merely your decision, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> We must all walk our own path through life, just because you choose differently than i do, does not make you any more or less of who you are, it just makes you who you are.



...hey strife, you can't say "it's who you are" and "your life is not based on honesty with self" and not expect that to be taken as something nearly offensive. Do you see that? _How are you so certain_ that my life is not based on honesty with self? Mine, and other's selves  You're limiting yourself with your own philosophy, I think. Kind of cancels itself out. Not being a dck.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 17, 2013)

Because anyone who claims to know for certain that we have souls, or that god exists, or doesn't exist... is not being honest. It seems preposterous to me, and humorous as well, that all of these people in the world who believe in things they can't see, who believe in the possibility of supernatural occurrences of all sorts, do not give credence to any possibility other than their own. 

What if, all the experiences you have ever been through, everything that made you think god exists, and spirits and souls exist... what if there is an entity out there, a supernatural one, maybe an evil one... or shit maybe just a neutral one, that is making you think those thoughts and experience those experiences at your expense, just to give this neutral entity pleasure.

Does that seem like a preposterous notion? 

It is no more preposterous than the notion that gods, souls, and an afterlife exists. 

How can you be certain gods, souls, spirits, an afterlife exist... when the possibility exists that a neutral supernatural entity could merely be filling your head with these ideas and experiences to fool you?

Certainty is not a privilege for those of us who seek honesty with self above all other things in our lives. 

It's ok bro, i'm not trying to be mean either even though sometimes it may sound like it.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 17, 2013)

...cool 

Dependent Origination. You have parents, right? Everything depends on that one act. That, my friend, is certain 

...as to the preposterous all I can say is, you'll have to eliminate all vices and defects to see that clearly. Me, I'm not quite there. Your soul / psyche is dependent upon all its parts. Cannot negate. Only assimilate - you must.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 17, 2013)

Yes, but we are not talking about anything based in "reality" here. We are talking about supernatural concepts.

I can be certain that everything in this reality that we can observe in the universe is made up of atoms. (And that i came from my parents)

I cannot be certain that god exists, or doesn't exist, or if we have souls or if there is an afterlife... even if i do want some of those ideas to be true, even if i THINK they are true... if i am to be honest with myself, i have to accept the fact that no matter how much i want there to be an afterlife, or a god, or souls (and i do!) 

There might not be....


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 18, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Yes, but we are not talking about anything based in "reality" here. We are talking about supernatural concepts.
> 
> I can be certain that everything in this reality that we can observe in the universe is made up of atoms. (And that i came from my parents)
> 
> ...



...the deeper levels (hehe) of spiritual texts describe the act of 'love making' as 'God' - the generator of our race - I believe in Him / Her / It. Without that numero 1 step, no universe for me to observe. The reality is that your psyche / soul is responsible for handing your reality to you. It has an agenda that you'll always be left wondering about.

"You are a slave to what you need in your soul" - Jung (remember that Jung was big on solving the problem of mind - the supernatural)

...I don't think it is a fair assessment to keep "GOD" in a place that you cannot reach him, only to say that He is not there.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 18, 2013)

I am not trying to say that your beliefs are wrong Eye. All i am trying to say, is that if you want to choose to base the purpose of your existence on honesty with self, you must have enough courage to admit to yourself that your beliefs....

They _could_ be wrong. (Not that they _are_ wrong)

That doesn't mean that you should believe in them any less, or be less passionate about them either. It's just a statement of honesty with self, and ultimately with others, when you realize, understand and accept the fact that everyone's beliefs could be wrong. 

There is one main difference between my spirituality and mainstream spirituality. I accept, and understand, that my beliefs... could be wrong. Where others refuse to accept this.

Whichever way you choose is nor more good or bad, no more right or wrong than any other path... it is how we cope with existence, with ourselves, and with uncertainty. Few acknowledge uncertainty, most ignore it... both paths do not differ by much, it all all depends on how much emphasis we choose put on honesty within ourselves.


----------



## sniffer (Jan 18, 2013)

It would be a sin Not to use cannabis ,
you must take care of your body and soul , and cannabis is really good for you
thats why its here for us


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 18, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> It's just a statement of honesty with self, and ultimately with others, *when you realize*, understand and accept the fact that everyone's beliefs could be wrong.


...strife, the people who are 'realized' have no need for honesty with everyone including their 'self'. They ARE all of those people - the rest is icing on the cake. The most rare of people have achieved it. That's why billions of people follow those person's teachings. Full of Nothing - Pleroma.

...to the bolded, I wonder what it is that you've realized. Realization is a step up the ladder. It takes snakes below your feet to climb up. That is why you see snakes below the feet of saints. They've done it, they 'know'. As I've said before, there are varying levels of those who know, they occupy the spaces ascending and descending the ladder.

...when you realize that only other people matter, and you want to help them out of 'hell' (the modern mind), when you have nothing but compassion for all sentient beings, when you've tamed your mind - then you can say 'realize'. To make real.

...how many magnetic draws are there to one's mind? Can we even count them? I've started to. It sucks


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 18, 2013)

As i keep trying to explain over and over, if you want to base the purpose of your existence on honesty with self, you must release attachment to certainty.

Too many people find it too difficult to bare uncertainty, this is neither good nor bad, it just is. 

Some people need to pretend to know that god exists, that we have souls and that when we die there is an afterlife... _some people can be honest with themselves and accept that this might not be the case_, but even if we do accept this (as i do)... that doesn't mean we have to stop believing (because i still believe).

It all depends on how honest you want to be with yourself. 

We all have two choices;

Accept that our beliefs hold the possibility of being wrong.

Or pretend that our beliefs are certainly true. 

One of those choices is more honest than the other, it is up to each individual to choose which path to fallow, both paths lead to the same exact place... who are you are, and who you want to be.

_Although in my humble opinion, it takes more courage to live in uncertainty... than live as if you know the answer. _




*I believe we have souls, that there is a god and that when i die there is an afterlife so magnificent it can never be explained in words... but i understand that just because i believe these things, does not make it true, i could be wrong. This is true honesty with self, believing... while also accepting the fact that my beliefs could be wrong.

Because the truth is, that no matter what i believe... or what anyone else believes, it doesn't matter... we could ALL be wrong! lol! It's not that scary once you get used to it though, it's actually extremely enlightening, to be able to be so honest with yourself about everything.


----------



## OldGrowth420 (Jan 18, 2013)

It can be a sin if you abuse it, being high all the time is not advisable and could be considered a sin. Using herb for medicinal or spiritual reasons, as long as it it doesn't cause one to stumble seems good to me. Genesis 1: 29. Smoking is harmful to the body, which is God's temple, so that would be considered a sin. But vaporizing or ingesting cannabis seems okay to me.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 18, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> As i keep trying to explain over and over, if you want to base the purpose of your existence on honesty with self, you must release attachment to certainty.


...I'm going to say one more thing about this. I've said since the very beginning, here, that I am certain we all originated in the sexual act. You seem to think that the religious texts of the world are not there, as if they are imaginary. They're real. So is the deepest message they contain. Any religious truth can be interpreted in 7 ways, and each of those 7 in 7 more ways. Funny how it all comes back to one point, though. So, no, I'm not afraid to say that I _know_ what gives life on earth *shrugs*


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 19, 2013)

Yes, but reproduction is something within this reality. I think you are being honest with yourself if you tell yourself you are certain you came from your parents. We have irrefutable evidence that this is what happens. 

If you tell yourself you are certain that god exists, or that we have souls, or if there is an afterlife.... that is NOT being honest, because you could be wrong. I'm not saying you ARE wrong, because it very well could be that god exists, that we have souls and that there is an afterlife.. i sure as hell hope that is the case. My point is, that it very well might not be the case, and if you try to tel yourself you are certain of any of those things... you are not being honest with yourself.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 19, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I'm going to say one more thing about this. I've said since the very beginning, here, that I am certain we all originated in the sexual act. You seem to think that the religious texts of the world are not there, as if they are imaginary. They're real. So is the deepest message they contain. Any religious truth can be interpreted in 7 ways, and each of those 7 in 7 more ways. Funny how it all comes back to one point, though. So, no, I'm not afraid to say that I _know_ what gives life on earth *shrugs*


I won't be able to resist, so here goes. The plurality of interpretations of religious texts ... how do we know which one is right? The texts themselves are generally replete with warnings against wrong interpretations. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I won't be able to resist, so here goes. The plurality of interpretations of religious texts ... how do we know which one is right? The texts themselves are generally replete with warnings against wrong interpretations. cn


...it's obvious that many interpretations are available. From the basis of existence, which is 'the act' (yeah, I'm tired of saying it), to the rest of what we know. We know the origin is unknowable. We only have the 'tools' of the unknown originator to use for the purpose of making 'itself' known - to itself. Humanity has had it's way with that act, this is also obvious. All of them are right, neer, as far as I can coordinate. Written to the consciousness within, not to the mind. But, how to listen to that voice?


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 20, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...it's obvious that many interpretations are available. From the basis of existence, which is 'the act' (yeah, I'm tired of saying it), to the rest of what we know. We know the origin is unknowable. We only have the 'tools' of the unknown originator to use for the purpose of making 'itself' known - to itself. Humanity has had it's way with that act, this is also obvious. All of them are right, neer, as far as I can coordinate. Written to the consciousness within, not to the mind. But, how to listen to that voice?


They cannot all be right if they keep calling each other wrong. At some point, the sword of discernment needs to be wielded, and the kinetically-processed pile sorted into "keep" and "discard" according to a protocol. Figuring the protocol has eluded me, but if two things contradict, at least one will need to be on the Discard pile. Jmo. cn


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 20, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> They cannot all be right if they keep calling each other wrong. At some point, the sword of discernment needs to be wielded, and the kinetically-processed pile sorted into "keep" and "discard" according to a protocol. Figuring the protocol has eluded me, but if two things contradict, at least one will need to be on the Discard pile. Jmo. cn


...I can dig that. I guess I see contradiction more like a koan


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 20, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...I can dig that. I guess I see contradiction more like a koan


They're lemon ... really ... cn


----------



## Mister Sister (Jan 21, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> They cannot all be right if they keep calling each other wrong. At some point, the sword of discernment needs to be wielded, and the kinetically-processed pile sorted into "keep" and "discard" according to a protocol. Figuring the protocol has eluded me, but if two things contradict, at least one will need to be on the Discard pile. Jmo. cn


They _can_ all be right and wrong at the same time. The reason they are or aren't is only because of one thing - you. I don't think right and wrong is the question we should be asking though, because the answer is so much simpler, yet much beyond that.

Cheers,

MS


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jan 21, 2013)

^circular logic ,everything still comes down to perspective but it is the conveying quality of that perspective that determines whether or not there is any meaningful discussion that can take place,you cant have it both ways when it comes to finding meaning behind answers.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 21, 2013)

Mister Sister said:


> They _can_ all be right and wrong at the same time. The reason they are or aren't is only because of one thing - you. I don't think right and wrong is the question we should be asking though, because the answer is so much simpler, yet much beyond that.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> MS


If they can be all right and wrong... how can you be certain your answer is the correct one?


----------



## Mister Sister (Jan 22, 2013)

Dislexicmidget2021 said:


> ^circular logic ,everything still comes down to perspective but it is the conveying quality of that perspective that determines whether or not there is any meaningful discussion that can take place,you cant have it both ways when it comes to finding meaning behind answers.


Speak for yourself, and I mean this in the nicest possible way. "You" can't have it both ways, doesn't mean that "I" cannot.



Zaehet Strife said:


> If they can be all right and wrong... how can you be certain your answer is the correct one?


I am not saying I have any answers, or that I am either correct or wrong. Just stating my personal beliefs, but I do appreciate your scrutiny. I will say that your inquisitions (from past discussion) have led me to question myself and to shed some old belief systems. Funny because we almost always disagree on most subject matter!


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 24, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> I won't be able to resist, so here goes. The plurality of interpretations of religious texts ... how do we know which one is right? The texts themselves are generally replete with warnings against wrong interpretations. cn


This is why we must use Nature/Experience to confirm truth. Using any Book to confirm truth is useless without outside validation. Like I stated in previous posts, we can use moderation as an example: Books like the Bible tell us to be moderate in all things. That can mean different things to different people. In the United States, obesity is the number 1 Health Epidemic. This natural Fact confirms Biblical Truth; immodest eating causes premature death and diseases.

In other areas of the World, this particular example might not apply, but other areas would, as all Humans struggle with some type of gluttony (over indulgence).


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 24, 2013)

Mister Sister said:


> Speak for yourself, and I mean this in the nicest possible way. "You" can't have it both ways, doesn't mean that "I" cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying I have any answers, or that I am either correct or wrong. Just stating my personal beliefs, but I do appreciate your scrutiny. I will say that your inquisitions (from past discussion) have led me to question myself and to shed some old belief systems. Funny because we almost always disagree on most subject matter!


Lol yea i know... but weird thing is, that i really like you and i really like your ideas too.

It's always nice to hear of someone who has enough courage to question their supernatural beliefs. Even if you choose to keep them, i choose to keep mine too... yet with the understanding that they may be wrong, i think that is key.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 24, 2013)

Mister Sister said:


> I will say that your inquisitions (from past discussion) have led me to question myself and to shed some old belief systems. Funny because we almost always disagree on most subject matter!


 You know, reading that makes me all tingly inside. The fact is that inquiring as to why someone believes something and having those reasons challenged allows you to shed potentially unsupportable beliefs is one of the reasons I like participating in these threads. People that won't question their beliefs (as well as those that give lip-service to the idea) are the truly closed-minded people. Skepticism is all about questioning, and without questioning, mankind wouldn't know the things we do. We wouldn't have science or technology, we would still be living in caves, yet so many religious and 'spiritual' people find it offensive that we question religion or spirituality. I don't question my or other people's beliefs with any animosity but I sure do get a lot of it in return. 

I would love to hear details on what you used to believe, what you shed and why.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 24, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> If they can be all right and wrong... how can you be certain your answer is the correct one?


Right. cn .


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 25, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> This is why we must use Nature/Experience to confirm truth. Using any Book to confirm truth is useless without outside validation. Like I stated in previous posts, we can use moderation as an example: Books like the Bible tell us to be moderate in all things. That can mean different things to different people. In the United States, obesity is the number 1 Health Epidemic. This natural Fact confirms Biblical Truth; immodest eating causes premature death and diseases.
> 
> In other areas of the World, this particular example might not apply, but other areas would, as all Humans struggle with some type of gluttony (over indulgence).


If I restrict myself to the Bible, we have dozens of denominations at something like war with one another over doctrinal matters all supposedly derived from the same core text. To me, this strongly undermines the claim to be a living and divine document. They all recognize the principle of moderation (except those who take moderation to amazing and distasteful excess) but quibble about implementation. A true text would not support such sniping. Jmo. cn


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 25, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> If I restrict myself to the Bible, we have dozens of denominations at something like war with one another over doctrinal matters all supposedly derived from the same core text. To me, this strongly undermines the claim to be a living and divine document. They all recognize the principle of moderation (except those who take moderation to amazing and distasteful excess) but quibble about implementation. A true text would not support such sniping. Jmo. cn


The Bible is nothing more than the Face of Mankind. Fault, failure, success, goodness, murder, divorce, immorality, war, disease, music, poetry, forgiveness, love, and the darkness of Religion, these are all revealed in Scripture in great detail. The Bible pulls no punches in manifesting who we are at ANY moment in our lives. I've told people, "If you want a mirror that will meet you at any point in your life, pick up a Bible".

Think about this: Jesus Christ told "God's Chosen" or those who thought they were on God's side, "You are blind guides! Whited Scheplucars, full of dead mans bones! Hypocrites!" This is important because most people seem to think that Jesus Christ was not hostile towards modern Religion/Faith which was based off of Old Testament Laws.

I see todays Religion/Faith as no different than thousands of years ago, where people became entrenched in an idea that soon fell into vain Tradition. We must do our best to avoid this trap, otherwise we will exact the same false Laws as the Scribes and Pharisees, where mercy and judgment have been corrupted.

When Jesus died on the cross, the Veil in the Temple was ripped in two, exposing what??? Most never think about what was seen after this event took place: The Mercy Seat. True mercy understands that Mankind is incapable of agreeing on ANY Book, no matter how PERFECT it is. In fact, I'm glad the Bible is not a perfect Book, because we could never handle such a Book. This Book was written by men, imperfect men, and the error in Scripture gives me hope.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 25, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> The Bible is nothing more than the Face of Mankind. Fault, failure, success, goodness, murder, divorce, immorality, war, disease, music, poetry, forgiveness, love, and the darkness of Religion, these are all revealed in Scripture in great detail. The Bible pulls no punches in manifesting who we are at ANY moment in our lives. I've told people, "If you want a mirror that will meet you at any point in your life, pick up a Bible".
> 
> Think about this: Jesus Christ told "God's Chosen" or those who thought they were on God's side, "You are blind guides! Whited Scheplucars, full of dead man&#8217;s bones! Hypocrites!" This is important because most people seem to think that Jesus Christ was not hostile towards modern Religion/Faith which was based off of Old Testament Laws.
> 
> ...


Then what of the core doctrine that the Bible is the word of God? In your last sentences you admit that it was imperfectly written by men. I can see no compelling elements in either the text or the traditions built on it that point to divine power at work. That is the entire _point _of gods: they have power beyond the human and use it. An omniscient but nullipotent God (as conceived by certain Jewish intellectuals) is uninteresting at day's end. 
And a text with built-in contradictions ... I cannot and will not accept as anything else than a purely human construct/fabrication. I will not countenance its description as either inspired or approved by a deity that is remarkably unavailable for comment. My opinion. cn


----------



## Mookjong (Jan 26, 2013)

Ive always believed the story of Moses and the Burning bush just a metaphor...


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 26, 2013)

cannabineer said:


> Then what of the core doctrine that the Bible is the word of God? In your last sentences you admit that it was imperfectly written by men. I can see no compelling elements in either the text or the traditions built on it that point to divine power at work. That is the entire _point _of gods: they have power beyond the human and use it. An omniscient but nullipotent God (as conceived by certain Jewish intellectuals) is uninteresting at day's end.
> And a text with built-in contradictions ... I cannot and will not accept as anything else than a purely human construct/fabrication. I will not countenance its description as either inspired or approved by a deity that is remarkably unavailable for comment. My opinion. cn


This is where I'm different; the Bible is NOT perfect because imperfect men wrote it. Others claim the Word of God to be infallible, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The Bible is full of mistakes, just like any other Book. There is nothing perfect on Earth, nothing. The Bible also indicates that we were created in God's image, which would allow for interpretations that lead to many questions; has God failed before? has God hated? does God feel anger that we feel? does God cry? Again, Creation reveals answers that validate Scripture and understanding is easily obtained IF we open our eyes to the truth of our surroundings.

God is available for comment: get off this damn Forum, shut the fucking computer OFF, don't answer the telephone, go outside in the quiet evening and look up into the heavens! God is CLEARLY seen by the things that are MADE! From the machine of the Human Body, to the Black Hole in the farthest Universe, God's Signature is there for ALL to SEE!


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 26, 2013)

Mookjong said:


> Ive always believed the story of Moses and the Burning bush just a metaphor...


I believe many of the Old Testament stories are metaphoric, including the story of Creation.


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 26, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> This is where I'm different; the Bible is NOT perfect because imperfect men wrote it. Others claim the Word of God to be infallible, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The Bible is full of mistakes, just like any other Book. There is nothing perfect on Earth, nothing. The Bible also indicates that we were created in God's image, which would allow for interpretations that lead to many questions; has God failed before? has God hated? does God feel anger that we feel? does God cry? Again, Creation reveals answers that validate Scripture and understanding is easily obtained IF we open our eyes to the truth of our surroundings.
> 
> God is available for comment: get off this damn Forum, shut the fucking computer OFF, don't answer the telephone, go outside in the quiet evening and look up into the heavens! *God is CLEARLY seen by the things that are MADE! From the machine of the Human Body, to the Black Hole in the farthest Universe, God's Signature is there for ALL to SEE!*



Hey, GM. I'm wondering if you realize that the bolded above is subjective. You probably do, you seem intelligent. It's kind of amusing that you give this advice to Neer, as he is an avid astronomer and from what I can gather, he finds intricate beauty and wonder in the complexity of the cosmos. As do I. I love the sense of awe and wonder that I receive when I contemplate the universe, revel in nature, experience a great piece of music, or have an intimate moment with a friend or loved one. But I do not see god or designer in any of these things, nor do I see a need to. One of the many great talents humans have is the ability to detect patterns, or intentionality, where none actually exist. From our perspective, when we create it is on purpose, and all that we create is designed (the watch has a watchmaker and a painting has a painter. A good book on this concept is Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker). It seems humans were evolved to anthropomorphize, so it's easy to understand the tendency to insist that nature and the cosmos itself must have a designer. I'm not saying that it is impossible for there to be a designer, I'm just stating that there is no need to posit one and the evidence does not point in that direction. To me, a late Beethoven string quartet, or watching my girlfriend get out of the shower, would be just as beautiful whether or not a deity exists...


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 26, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, GM. I'm wondering if you realize that the bolded above is subjective. You probably do, you seem intelligent. It's kind of amusing that you give this advice to Neer, as he is an avid astronomer and from what I can gather, he finds intricate beauty and wonder in the complexity of the cosmos. As do I. I love the sense of awe and wonder that I receive when I contemplate the universe, revel in nature, experience a great piece of music, or have an intimate moment with a friend or loved one. But I do not see god or designer in any of these things, nor do I see a need to. One of the many great talents humans have is the ability to detect patterns, or intentionality, where none actually exist. From our perspective, when we create it is on purpose, and all that we create is designed (the watch has a watchmaker and a painting has a painter. A good book on this concept is Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker). It seems humans were evolved to anthropomorphize, so it's easy to understand the tendency to insist that nature and the cosmos itself must have a designer. I'm not saying that it is impossible for there to be a designer, I'm just stating that there is no need to posit one and the evidence does not point in that direction. To me, a late Beethoven string quartet, or watching my girlfriend get out of the shower, would be just as beautiful whether or not a deity exists...


Purely Epic.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 28, 2013)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, GM. I'm wondering if you realize that the bolded above is subjective. You probably do, you seem intelligent. It's kind of amusing that you give this advice to Neer, as he is an avid astronomer and from what I can gather, he finds intricate beauty and wonder in the complexity of the cosmos. As do I. I love the sense of awe and wonder that I receive when I contemplate the universe, revel in nature, experience a great piece of music, or have an intimate moment with a friend or loved one. But I do not see god or designer in any of these things, nor do I see a need to. One of the many great talents humans have is the ability to detect patterns, or intentionality, where none actually exist. From our perspective, when we create it is on purpose, and all that we create is designed (the watch has a watchmaker and a painting has a painter. A good book on this concept is Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker). It seems humans were evolved to anthropomorphize, so it's easy to understand the tendency to insist that nature and the cosmos itself must have a designer. I'm not saying that it is impossible for there to be a designer, I'm just stating that there is no need to posit one and the evidence does not point in that direction. To me, a late Beethoven string quartet, or watching my girlfriend get out of the shower, would be just as beautiful whether or not a deity exists...


Good points! I do realize that my take on Creation is "My Take". I do base my theory on a solid premise, as anything on Earth that contains human touch, the imprint of a signature is there, regardless if they sign the picture or not. I see Creation as a planned system, with balance, purpose, and destiny. These all point to a responsible Being (IMO). 

I also don't believe in Evolution, as certain systems within Nature could not evolve without destroying the life they are trying to sustain. For instance, Blood Clotting: this system is an intricate maneuver within the Human Body that can bear little, to no leeway. Proteins and other components must interact in direct unison in order to prevent a person from bleeding to death. Evolution has also left us with no genuine, scientific proof, other than a host of presumptions and maybes.

Now, people can say the same thing about me, as I live by a host of presumptions and maybes because I have never been to breakfast with God, but I still feel that my honesty about Creation leads me to a Greater Power because I CAN prove that systems are marked by Human Creation (Car/Houses/Clothes/Computers/Electricity/Paintings: all have a human signature)

Now, about watching your beautiful girlfriend/wife get out of the shower: why do enjoy that? Where did enjoyment come from, and who invented love? Why does music reflect peace, giving you satisfaction by the combination and harmony of certain tones played by specific instruments?


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 28, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> I also don't believe in Evolution, as certain systems within Nature could not evolve without destroying the life they are trying to sustain. For instance, Blood Clotting: this system is an intricate maneuver within the Human Body that can bear little, to no leeway. Proteins and other components must interact in direct unison in order to prevent a person from bleeding to death. Evolution has also left us with no genuine, scientific proof, other than a host of presumptions and maybes.


It certainly doesn't matter if you believe in evolution, because evolution believes in you...

Seriously, the blood clotting cascade? I guess you read Micheal Behe's book without actually looking at the evidence for yourself. This of course, in addition to being an argument from ignorance (I can't understand how x could evolve naturally, therefore evolution is false), it has been discredited many times, including at the famous Dover trial where Behe was on the witness stand, testifying that he has not read much of the current biochemical literature where in fact, there are good examples of how these various functions could emerge.
These types of negative arguments against evolution are basically placeholders as to an area that someone might want to study, they are not effective counter-arguments to the fact of evolution, something that we can directly observe.


----------



## Dislexicmidget2021 (Jan 28, 2013)

Mister Sister said:


> Speak for yourself, and I mean this in the nicest possible way. "You" can't have it both ways, doesn't mean that "I" cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 28, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Good points! I do realize that my take on Creation is "My Take". I do base my theory on a solid premise, as anything on Earth that contains human touch, the imprint of a signature is there, regardless if they sign the picture or not. I see Creation as a planned system, with balance, purpose, and destiny. These all point to a responsible Being (IMO).


Your take on this matter isn't actually a theory, as theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge and not merely a guess as laypeople misuse the term. Your point here was my point, that since we are designers/creators of the human made objects on our planet, we tend to think that nature and the cosmos must also have a designer. No empirical evidence points to this...


> I also don't believe in Evolution, as certain systems within Nature could not evolve without destroying the life they are trying to sustain. For instance, Blood Clotting: this system is an intricate maneuver within the Human Body that can bear little, to no leeway. Proteins and other components must interact in direct unison in order to prevent a person from bleeding to death. Evolution has also left us with no genuine, scientific proof, other than a host of presumptions and maybes.


MP alluded to this well; my guess is that you have read creationist literature (probably Behe's) for which there is no scientific backing. I'm also guessing that you have never seriously studied evolution by natural selection. Evolution has been very generous with it's evidence: we have an amazing amount of fossil records of species evolving, which is incredible because the situations that yield these fossils happen very infrequently. But even if we had NO fossils, the dna evidence is undeniable. Evolution is supported by many diverse scientific fields, the process is as much a fact as any other knowledge we possess. IMO, it's a little strange to say you don't believe in something you haven't studied and clearly don't understand...


> Now, people can say the same thing about me, as I live by a host of presumptions and maybes because I have never been to breakfast with God, but I still feel that my honesty about Creation leads me to a Greater Power because I CAN prove that systems are marked by Human Creation (Car/Houses/Clothes/Computers/Electricity/Paintings: all have a human signature)


See my first paragraph in this post...


> Now, about watching your beautiful girlfriend/wife get out of the shower: why do enjoy that? Where did enjoyment come from, and who invented love? Why does music reflect peace, giving you satisfaction by the combination and harmony of certain tones played by specific instruments?


I think it would help your thinking process if you familiarized yourself with basic logical fallacies, you've demonstrated two here; The Argument from Ignorance and now begging the question. I find my girlfriend's body beautiful because I was evolved to do so (so we would have sex and pass on our genes, the only intrinsic purpose for life). Who invented love is begging the question that love was _invented_. Love is a neuro-chemical process, a combination of specific neural networks firing in specific ways coupled with the presence of many neuro-transmitters (serotonin, dopamine, etc.). Your question of why music induces peace and beauty is an excellent one. I do not know the answer, but positing a deity as the answer doesn't answer the question. It is a conversation stopper, and hinders the process of actually gaining that knowledge...


----------



## stoking (Jan 28, 2013)

I religiously smoke a bowl every morning, noon and night. So doubt it. Sometimes the stuff in my bowl, sends me to heaven. So nope nothing in the world makes me think I am sinning for using. Unless of course I stole it beforehand.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 28, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> It certainly doesn't matter if you believe in evolution, because evolution believes in you...
> 
> Seriously, the blood clotting cascade? I guess you read Micheal Behe's book without actually looking at the evidence for yourself. This of course, in addition to being an argument from ignorance (I can't understand how x could evolve naturally, therefore evolution is false), it has been discredited many times, including at the famous Dover trial where Behe was on the witness stand, testifying that he has not read much of the current biochemical literature where in fact, there are good examples of how these various functions could emerge.
> These types of negative arguments against evolution are basically placeholders as to an area that someone might want to study, they are not effective counter-arguments to the fact of evolution, something that we can directly observe.


Fuck, you guys talk down at me like you're some kind of fucking god. Without looking at the evidence myself?? WTF is that supposed to mean? I've cut myself numerous times, and I've watched people almost bleed to death. Blood clotting is simply your body's defense system to save your life in the event of a tragic accident or injury. The study I did on this pointed out HOW this system works, and HOW this system requires a COMPLETE network of functions in order for your blood to stop flowing. Remove 1 of these functions and you will DIE without assistance from someone who happens to be there when blood is gushing from your wound! Now, you tell me this is wrong.

Evolution believes in me??? I seriously have no idea what you're talking about. Evolution is a THEORY that CANNOT be proven. You may have come from a fucking monkey, but I don't believe that horseshit! There is still the Missing Link, and half man, half monkey fossils are 0, NADA!

You tell me how these "Functions" could emerge. You will wind up on an endless trail of maybes, and you will end up asking me to have FAITH in your idea that has no real PROOF. Well, I don't put my Faith in things that remove me from accountability, which is the main reason for Atheism.

You see, the complicated is made more complicated by Science that is surrounded by myth, and the Evolution of MAN is a myth. It's a fantasy.

My argument that God is revealed through Nature is far more proven, as Intelligent Design is in every crack and corner of this Earth.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 28, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Evolution is a THEORY that CANNOT be proven. You may have come from a fucking monkey, but I don't believe that horseshit! There is still the Missing Link, and half man, half monkey fossils are 0, NADA!


It takes about 15 minutes of studying evolution before you realize that the theory does not say humans came from monkeys, nor does it predict a half man half monkey fossil. Rather than arguing against evolution, you are arguing against some misunderstood concept in your head which you call evolution.

Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.

[video=youtube;4238NN8HMgQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ[/video]


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 28, 2013)

I agree with Heis. Man we aren't talking down to you, even though it may seem like it. If an idea clashes with a belief system the automatic response is to ignore and deny it. If an there is an idea you don't understand though... and you wish to learn more about this idea, i think it wise to look into it as best as you can, to go into detail about the process of evolution and its foundation in all biology. 

Sometimes it's hard to learn about an idea that we may not like, or agree with, but if we want to better our understanding of the world... instead of insisting that our inner world is the correct one... we must break out of our shell and properly study and research ideas they may not coincide with our preordained ideas ya know?


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> You tell me how these "Functions" could emerge. You will wind up on an endless trail of maybes, and you will end up asking me to have FAITH in your idea that has no real PROOF. Well, I don't put my Faith in things that remove me from accountability, which is the main reason for Atheism.


I don't need to show you the exact steps that evolution took in order to demonstrate something _could _have evolved. Yet, here you are like so many anti-science religionists claiming that such-n-such COULD NOT have evolved naturally. My one example of how it could evolve completely obliterates your claim, even if my example isn't the exact way it occurred. No faith required. You are correct that my example doesn't prove something evolved, and I never claimed it did. We have many other reasons to believe that the diversity of life, including humans, evolved naturally from a common ancestor. 

I'm not talking down to you, that seems to be your perception, possibly because you were caught in a dishonest statement. When I mention to look at the evidence yourself, I'm referring to not immediately accepting some claim by an IDer, but to check to see if that claim is true, maybe Pubmed, maybe Google, I don't fucking care, but stop whining about being talked down to when you make claims that are so terribly wrong and easily disprovable.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 29, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> I don't need to show you the exact steps that evolution took in order to demonstrate something _could _have evolved. Yet, here you are like so many anti-science religionists claiming that such-n-such COULD NOT have evolved naturally. My one example of how it could evolve completely obliterates your claim, even if my example isn't the exact way it occurred. No faith required. You are correct that my example doesn't prove something evolved, and I never claimed it did. We have many other reasons to believe that the diversity of life, including humans, evolved naturally from a common ancestor.
> 
> I'm not talking down to you, that seems to be your perception, possibly because you were caught in a dishonest statement. When I mention to look at the evidence yourself, I'm referring to not immediately accepting some claim by an IDer, but to check to see if that claim is true, maybe Pubmed, maybe Google, I don't fucking care, but stop whining about being talked down to when you make claims that are so terribly wrong and easily disprovable.


_"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein_


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 29, 2013)

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: _Has Science Found God?_, by Victor J Stenger

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. * If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it*."

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in _Albert Einstein: The Human Side_, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> _"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." &#8212;Albert Einstein_


More like this...

[...]Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. *During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.*[...]

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/scienceandreligion2.html


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 29, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> More like this...
> 
> [...]Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
> 
> ...


THANK YOU! I couldn't freaking find that!


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 29, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> It takes about 15 minutes of studying evolution before you realize that the theory does not say humans came from monkeys, nor does it predict a half man half monkey fossil. Rather than arguing against evolution, you are arguing against some misunderstood concept in your head which you call evolution.
> 
> Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago. Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.


No offense, but what you're saying here is part bullshit. When I was growing up, SCIENCE class was teaching that man came from apes, using pictures to prove the point. All of this "New" interpretation about Evolution has developed in recent years because they found what I was being taught in school was, FUCKING BULLSHIT! I still feel and believe that the Evolution of Man is bullshit.

Sorry, but I have to laugh when people say, "50 million years ago!" LOLOLOLOL! Shit, we can't even figure out what happened 100 years ago, and the fucking Government that wants me to believe in Evolution can't even pay their damn bills!

Just like I said in my other post, you are trying to take me on a wild goose chase that will never end, full of maybes, what if's, and might have beens.

Since geese are on the subject, how does a bird fly thousands of miles to Alaska, a State almost 3 times the size of Texas, where they locate a pond no bigger than my house in the land of a "Million Lakes", finding a mate to procreate in the same place where they were born? No GPS. No Radar. No Map. No previous knowledge of that pond, accept when they were born. Where the fuck did that "Guidance System" come from? Explain to me how that Evolved.

I'm a fairly simple man, and I like to keep it that way. If someone tells me, "Hey, I just found names written on the beach with a sand castle to boot, and guess what??? No one was responsible!" Sorry, no comprenday'''! Evolution wants me to believe, that just happened without a valid explanation that can be proven. I say, SOMEONE was responsible for the sand castle and the written words.

Heisenberg, who fired the first trigger? Who started this whole thing called the Universe? You want me to believe that EVERYTHING came out of NOTHING.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 29, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> More like this...
> 
> [...]Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
> 
> ...



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 29, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
> 
> - Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: _Has Science Found God?_, by Victor J Stenger
> 
> ...


I've already made it clear, that Scripture or the Bible is full of flaws and metaphors. That doesn't mean the Book is invalid. There isn't 1 perfect Book on Earth, and I see a reason for that; Humanity could never handle ANYTHING that is perfect, as we were born imperfect and we will die imperfect. Going a bit deeper, I feel that something perfect (without flaw) would destroy the entire Human Race.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html


Science is a method, not a person. Scientists are free to believe in god, but they do not use the scientific method to get there. Science, being a process, can not hold a belief one way or the other, it can only suggest conclusions and make predictions based on evidence and reason, of which there is none for god.

I like that this article, which you have used as a source, includes this paragraph:

"One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 29, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> Science is a method, not a person. Scientists are free to believe in god, but they do not use the scientific method to get there. Science, being a process, can not hold a belief one way or the other, it can only suggest conclusions and make predictions based on evidence and reason, of which there is none for god.
> 
> I like that this article, which you have used as a source, includes this paragraph:
> 
> "One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."


I completely disagree with you, and your first statement(s) are your opinion. Since you're wanting to point out certain opinions/paragraphs in the National Geographic article, here is another quote:

*Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God." *


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 29, 2013)

Just because you cannot comprehend nor understand biology... does not mean it isn't true. 

In my opinion, if you are sincerely interested in learning more about how the universe works, i would enroll in a college biology class. (If you are even out of high school yet, which i doubt)

But it seems as if you have already made up your mind, you believe whatever you want to believe... but if you are really curious and have a fascination about life itself, take a biology class, and ask lots of questions.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 29, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Just because you cannot comprehend nor understand biology... does not mean it isn't true.
> 
> In my opinion, if you are sincerely interested in learning more about how the universe works, i would enroll in a college biology class. (If you are even out of high school yet, which i doubt)
> 
> But it seems as if you have already made up your mind, you believe whatever you want to believe... but if you are really curious and have a fascination about life itself, take a biology class, and ask lots of questions.


See, there goes the fucking condescending comments. Fuck you!!!! Where did I say, "My mind is made up and I believe whatever I want to believe, and when did I tell you when I graduated from High School?"

I can tell you this; what I've done and where I've been in this life, is beyond your imagination.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> Sometimes it's hard to learn about an idea that we may not like, or agree with, but if we want to better our understanding of the world... instead of insisting that our inner world is the correct one... we must break out of our shell and properly study and research ideas they may not coincide with our preordained ideas ya know?


This is the main reason I LOVED teaching that philosophy class at the university. About half of the people would close up and get defensive when you presented an argument they didn't agree with; half of those people would stop attending class about a week or two into the semester. Of the remaining half, one quarter of them held the belief prior to attending the class, so it's presentation does not phase them. The other quarter on the other hand would keep an open mind and would sometimes begine to question their beliefs (about whatever). I loved this, there was such dispair and confusion in their faces for a couple of weeks; a few even lost sleep over it. But eventually, these are the ones that have an epiphany and their world becomes so much bigger and more beautiful than it ever was. That's what made it all worth it.

Again, I love the poor unsuspecting students taking their first philosophy class expecting to have pointless metaphysical discussions about reality. Why is this my favorite thing? Two reasons: 1. It's interesting/entertaining to watch someone have their reality, their core beliefs, their values, their selves called into question and actively argued against for the first time. Many times, when asked to defend/justify their beliefs, they get offended and upset (which is fine and to be expected) and do not return the next day. 2. If they stick around and keep an open mind, you get the priviledge of seeing that look on their faces; the one you had at one time. That look of realizing the world is full of possibility, that there is so much more to life, that look of total freedom, awe, relief, and glee. I love that look, because it means there is one more person in the world that will yearn for the truth no matter what it may be; even if it is terrifying because truth is always better than untruth (at least in my opinion).


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> I completely disagree with you, and your first statement(s) are your opinion. Since you're wanting to point out certain opinions/paragraphs in the National Geographic article, here is another quote:
> 
> *Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work. "In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God." *


So you are ignoring the idea that evolution is accepted science, despite earlier claiming that it is based on myths? Why should we pay attention to some parts of your article and not others?

I read the entire article, and do not disagree that scientists are able to have faith. Scientists are also able to believe 2+2=5, but they wouldn't be able to support it with math, just as they can not prove faith with science. You can disagree that science is a method, but by doing so you show how uninformed you are on the subject. I am not sure what you are trying to prove, other than that scientists are human and susceptible to the same mistakes of logic, perception and memory as other humans. That is a point well taken and in fact the entire reason the scientific method was designed in the first place; to overcome human bias and limitation. 

You are essentially making an argument from authority, as if we would all follow along if Einstein said the moon was made of cheese. You are impressed by the name Einstein and so jump at the chance to use it when you perceive he is on your side. But any study of Einstein reveals that his idea of 'god' was not a being that could be prayed to or one that oversees the daily lives of his creations. Einstein is best classified as a classical pantheist.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

Calm down GuitarMan... 
There was absolutely NOTHING condescending about what Zaehet said. 
Do you want to understand evolution or whatever it was that you guys were talking about? 
I thought I understood it until I actually understood it. 
I highly recommend _The God Delusion_. Feel free to skip all the stuff about religion and focus only on the stuff about evolution. It answered questions for me that I hadn't even begun to ask. 
If you don't feel like reading the book, may I suggest a video series that you can find for free on Youtube? I wish so hard that someone had shown this video series to me when I was a child. It is probably one of the most influential and important videos on Youtube. 

I'm linking to the second video in the series of seven because I feel it is a better place to start considering the conversations. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ExaBtX7_QU
They aren't that long, I hope you will take the time to watch them. They are dated, but the information is still accurate as best as I can tell.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

Maybe *this* will convince all you know it all atheists!


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Maybe *this* will convince all you know it all atheists!


I like this version.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

Here is THIS!


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 29, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> I like this version.


Dude that really made me laugh!


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Here is THIS!


Pretty funny. I shall have to assimilate this series into my collection. Abraham reminds me of Moss from IT crowd.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

I recommend Peepshow, if you ever get the chance to watch it. It's on youtube and Hulu, Hulu is better because it has all the episodes in order. It's one of my favorite shows of all time. 
This is part of the skit show that I linked to before, it really cracks me up. I think we all needed a break from the serious talk.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 29, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> Science is a method, not a person. Scientists are free to believe in god, but they do not use the scientific method to get there. Science, being a process, can not hold a belief one way or the other, it can only suggest conclusions and make predictions based on evidence and reason, of which there is none for god.
> 
> I like that this article, which you have used as a source, includes this paragraph:
> 
> "One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."


...thanks for pointing out that science is a method. Art, Science, Religion, and Philosophy. We can't change the fact that those are the 4 pillars of knowing. Not one of them could be excluded to the benefit of the other 3.

...there is a science to knowing, imo. The 'mother' of all laws is that of preservation. Energy cannot be destroyed. What happens to a person's energy after passing on? Thanks to science, we know that energy cannot be created, or destroyed. By that we 'know' something happens to it after this life. It is transformed, but to what?


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

After death, any heat energy is dissipated. Any caloric energy is consumed by the bacteria and other decomposers. 
It would be helpful if you defined energy and stuck with that one definition because this equivocation stuff just isn't deserving of a thoughtful response. Did you mean "conservation" instead of "preservation"?

How is "art" considered knowledge? Religion was only considered knowledge before science was perfected.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 29, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> After death, any heat energy is dissipated. Any caloric energy is consumed by the bacteria and other decomposers.
> It would be helpful if you defined energy and stuck with that one definition because this equivocation stuff just isn't deserving of a thoughtful response. Did you mean "conservation" instead of "preservation"?
> 
> How is "art" considered knowledge? Religion was only considered knowledge before science was perfected.


...consider both terms - asymmetry happened after creation. For anything to happen there must be a broken symmetry. Equivocation? I've yet to make any assumptions about you. Want to read back on your posts with an eye for assumptions?

...wasting the precious energy in this closed system by responding to your last question would be a poor decision on my part. Sanity is valuable to me


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...consider both terms - asymmetry happened after creation. For anything to happen there must be a broken symmetry. Equivocation? I've yet to make any assumptions about you. Want to read back on your posts with an eye for assumptions?
> 
> ...wasting the precious energy in this closed system by responding to your last question would be a poor decision on my part. Sanity is valuable to me


I believe the equivocation is when you conflate scientifically defined energy with the more colloquial term 'life energy', as science has never established that we are a special energy in and of ourselves. So when science says energy can not be created or destroyed, they are not referring to an imagined life energy. We may or may not have a life energy which may or may not play by the same rules as material energy, but quoting the rule of conservation does not do anything to establish such energy, and instead plays on ambiguity.

I would have to think more about art being an aspect of knowledge. I can't disagree that we needed to crawl with religion before we could walk with science or journey with technology, but we do not normally preserve training wheels once we've outgrown them. In any case that would seem to be a utilitarian argument. We could make up a new religion right now that is infinitely better than any we have, yet no one would follow it because we would know it isn't true. We do not need to subscribe to things which require the surrender of our logic and sensibility to be able to take advantage of careful thought and study. So I disagree that we could not remove religion from our future to the benefit of science and philosophy, though I do acknowledge that art would suffer.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

Oh, here come the theistic jabs. Is it safe to assume that you go that route because you don't know the answer? It wasn't a trick question btw... 

Where did this "asymmetry" stuff come from? I don't know what you're talking about. Could you please explain a bit?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 29, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> I believe the equivocation is when you conflate scientifically defined energy with the more colloquial term 'life energy', as science has never established that we are a special energy in and of ourselves. So when science says energy can not be created or destroyed, they are not referring to an imagined life energy. We may or may not have a life energy which may or may not play by the same rules as material energy, but quoting the rule of conservation does not do anything to establish such energy, and instead plays on ambiguity.
> 
> I would have to think more about art being an aspect of knowledge. I can't disagree that we needed to crawl with religion before we could walk with science or journey with technology, but we do not normally preserve training wheels once we've outgrown them. In any case that would seem to be a utilitarian argument. We could make up a new religion right now that is infinitely better than any we have, yet no one would follow it because we would know it isn't true. We do not need to subscribe to things which require the surrender of our logic and sensibility to be able to take advantage of careful thought and study. So I disagree that we could not remove religion from our future to the benefit of science and philosophy, though I do acknowledge that art would suffer.


...thanks, Heis. I gained a lot from the first paragraph, though I was being light-hearted with the assumption bit 

...I think that like everything else, religions have levels of understanding. I think that even if the most complex stuff were plain to see, most wouldn't see it. That includes those with the training wheels. I think once a person has a proper grasp of cause and effect, which is self-evident, scientifically evident, then it makes sense to pay heed to multiple levels of meaning. Art provides those by combinations of attributes which create a new view. Art is the spark that happens when the right and the left come in contact. The greatest of all hide many truths. There are things about paintings, etc, that people do not know. Information is hidden in art, coded into art. Consciousness plays here, you have to study the year paintings were made in order to understand the culture of the time. Like this, you can 'see' what you wouldn't normally see. When something doesn't make sense, and you know it, do you think that the person creating a masterpiece would leave it? Someone with the focus that you have for your 'art' wouldn't leave it.

I spoke with an Iranian man today. We talked about this kind of stuff. He said that the most brilliant scientists he 'knows' use religious iconography to help solve problems. I can't argue with that. Especially in light of the fact that cern has some incredible art outside the entrance, and inside the entrance.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

Oh please don't open the can of worms that is "cause and effect".

I don't even know how to respond to your post... 

There may be people through history that have hidden diagrams of human organs, etc. withing paintings, but knowledge is not inherent to paintings or any other form of art. 

I'm going to say this and end it... cause and effect is not self evident. I was going to elaborate more, but I'm getting another one of my migraines. 

Sure, feel free to read back through my posts for any unwarranted assumptions I may have made. If I'm wrong or assumed unfairly, I will admit it and make corrections.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Oh please don't open the can of worms that is "cause and effect".


Did you know that .99999~ = 1?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 29, 2013)

^ it's the difference between 'like' and 'unlike'


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 29, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Oh, here come the theistic jabs. Is it safe to assume that you go that route because you don't know the answer? It wasn't a trick question btw...
> 
> Where did this "asymmetry" stuff come from? I don't know what you're talking about. Could you please explain a bit?


...PreachyKeen? Don't think so.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 29, 2013)

Yep.... I have a headache now....


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 29, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Yep.... I have a headache now....



...is that relevant somehow, I don't understand.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> _"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein_


IOW, you don't have any answers as to why you believe bullshit ID and reject evolution except that your religion dictates it.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> No offense, but what you're saying here is part bullshit. When I was growing up, SCIENCE class was teaching that man came from apes, using pictures to prove the point. All of this "New" interpretation about Evolution has developed in recent years because they found what I was being taught in school was, FUCKING BULLSHIT! I still feel and believe that the Evolution of Man is bullshit.


Maybe people's responses to you wouldn't seem so condescending if you weren't spouting lies. If YOUR science class taught you that, then they were wrong. More likely, you have limited recollection of what you were taught and the years have clouded the subject even more, especially considering your current beliefs. Of course we descended from an ancestor that could legitimately be called an ape, but it was not a extant species of ape as you are implying. This is hardly a 'new' interpretation as it even predates Darwin with the creationist Carl Linnaeus classifying the great apes as our closest relatives. Darwin didn't touch much on human evolution in Origin, but the 1863 book by Thomas Henry Huxley _*Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, *_does outline evidence for the common ancestry of humans and apes. 
This inaccurate characterization of the claims of evolutionary theory doesn't come from the scientists but the religionists that have opposed the idea of human-ape common ancestry from the beginning. The Scopes "monkey trial" is an excellent example of this use of disinformation. Yet, even then, we see that the scientists never once claim that we are descended from modern apes. This is and always has been a straw man perpetuated by the ignorant and those unwilling to understand what evolutionary theory actually says. 


> Sorry, but I have to laugh when people say, "50 million years ago!" LOLOLOLOL! Shit, we can't even figure out what happened 100 years ago, and the fucking Government that wants me to believe in Evolution can't even pay their damn bills!


I seriously doubt 'the government' gives a shit what you believe. 


> Just like I said in my other post, you are trying to take me on a wild goose chase that will never end, full of maybes, what if's, and might have beens.


Your acceptance of evolution will not impact me or any other poster here one iota. However, you seem content to remain ignorant and believe incorrect characterizations of the theory and the reality of evolution. I only interceded in order to help clear up some of your confusion, but if you are unwilling to have a dialogue and prefer to spout the ID/creationist party-line drivel, then so be it. I will continue to correct your mischaracterizations and lies and you are free to continue to plug your fingers in your ears and avoid actually learning some science.


----------



## guy incognito (Jan 29, 2013)

ape goes in, human comes out. you can't explain that.


----------



## Shannon Alexander (Jan 29, 2013)

But we are apes...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 29, 2013)

Evolution is the devil!!


----------



## abandonconflict (Jan 30, 2013)

God is psilocybin.


----------



## buckaroo bonzai (Jan 30, 2013)

....."He gave us ALL green herb...as for meet"......

and ...."the earth is mans and the fullness thereof".....

i don't know much but I know one thing....

if you took Christ,Buddha,Muhammad,Gandhi,Shiva,Krishna and any other spiritual 'religious' leader and put them in the same room....

they would embrace ....

.....and the room would be so full of love and a high vibration that it would be almost impossible for a regular person to be able to be in that room with them..

...if you took all these spiritual 'leaders' ..followers and put them in the same room.....
they would try and kill each other-


the God I worship has no religion--

om mani padme aum--

how can it be a sin to use something The Creator gave us? did He say it is a sin?


erb is the most healing plant on the planet--that is why they want to keep us from it....

i say BEWARE of people using 'religion' as their self righteous finger of judgement .....

.....these are the same folks that beat the slaves and burned 'witches' and threw Christians to lion not to mention the Spanish inquisition--


----------



## Figong (Jan 30, 2013)

Here we go:

Genesis 1:29 (New King James Version)

And God said, See, I have given you every herb _that_ yields seed which _is_ on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

To me, that says the bible condones cooking with mj - my interpretation

Is cannabis an herb? Check... does it yield seed? yes... 'to you it shall be for food' ... I'd say that's pretty straight-forward, with nothing to misinterpret. ('Use' of cannabis in any form qualifies for the 'is it a sin?' question, I would assume.) So my answer would be.. no, if it's spoken from God, he would not condone it if it were a sin - to me, anyway.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Jan 30, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Oh, here come the theistic jabs. Is it safe to assume that you go that route because you don't know the answer? It wasn't a trick question btw...
> 
> Where did this "asymmetry" stuff come from? I don't know what you're talking about. Could you please explain a bit?


...self-preservation in nature is key. You seem like the type that would know that.

"Somehow asymmetry seems to play a protagonist role in the history of our universe and our life. Current cosmological models speculate that the four fundamental forces of nature (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong) arose when symmetry broke down after the very high temperatures of the early universe began to cool down. Today, we live in a universe that is the child of that momentous split. _Without that "broken symmetry" there would be no electrical force and no nuclear force, and our universe would be vastly impoverished in natural phenomena.

_
Scientists have also speculated at length about the asymmetry between matter and antimatter: if one is the mirror image of the other and no known physical process shows a preference for either, why is it that in our universe protons and electrons (matter) overwhelmingly prevails over positrons and antiprotons (antimatter)?


Most physical laws can be reversed in time, at least on paper. But most will not. Time presents another asymmetry, the "arrow of time" which points always in the same direction, no matter what is allowed by Mathematics. The universe, history and life all proceed forward and never backwards.

Possibly related to it is the other great asymmetry: entropy. One can't unscramble an egg. A lump of sugar which is dissolved in a cup of coffee cannot become a lump of sugar again. Left to themselves, buildings collapse, they do not improve. Most artifacts require periodic maintenance, otherwise they would decay. Disorder is continuously accumulated. Some processes are irreversible.


It turns out that entropy is a key factor in enabling life (and, of course, in ending it). Living organisms maintain themselves far from equilibrium and entropy plays a role in it.


Moreover, in 1848 the French biologist Louis Pasteur discovered that aminoacids (which make up proteins which make up living organisms) exhibit another singular asymmetry: for every aminoacid there exist in nature its mirror image, but life on Earth uses only one form of the aminoacids (left-handed ones). Pasteur&#8217;s mystery is still unexplained (Pasteur thought that somehow that "was" the definition of life). Later, biologists would discover that bodies only use right-handed sugars, thereby confirming that homochirality (the property of being single-handed) is an essential property of life.

Finally, an asymmetry presents itself even in the site of thinking itself, in the human brain. The two cerebral hemispheres are rather symmetric in all species except ours. Other mammals do not show preferences for grasping food with one or the other paw. We do. Most of us are right-handed and those who are not are left-handed. Asymmetry seems to be a fundamental feature of our brain. The left hemisphere is primarily used for language and the *interplay between the two hemispheres seems to be important for consciousness*.


...SleepyKeen?



re: cause and effect.

Causality


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 30, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Calm down GuitarMan...
> There was absolutely NOTHING condescending about what Zaehet said.
> Do you want to understand evolution or whatever it was that you guys were talking about?
> I thought I understood it until I actually understood it.
> ...


Thanks for the links. When I get time, I will look them over.

I would like to pose this question to you and others: Do you believe you evolved from "Something", or do you believe you evolved from "Nothing"?


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 30, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Your acceptance of evolution will not impact me or any other poster here one iota. However, you seem content to remain ignorant and believe incorrect characterizations of the theory and the reality of evolution. I only interceded in order to help clear up some of your confusion, but if you are unwilling to have a dialogue and prefer to spout the ID/creationist party-line drivel, then so be it. I will continue to correct your mischaracterizations and lies and you are free to continue to plug your fingers in your ears and avoid actually learning some science.



Your acceptance of A CREATOR will not impact me or any other poster here one iota. However, you seem content to remain ignorant and believe incorrect characterizations of the theory and the reality of CREATION. I only interceded in order to help clear up some of your confusion, but if you are unwilling to have a dialogue and prefer to spout the EVOLUTIONARY party-line drivel, then so be it. I will continue to correct your mischaracterizations and lies and you are free to continue to plug your fingers in your ears and avoid actually learning some science.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Thanks for the links. When I get time, I will look them over.
> 
> I would like to pose this question to you and others: Do you believe you evolved from "Something", or do you believe you evolved from "Nothing"?


Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. I didn't evolve from anything, neither did you. Our species evolved.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 30, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> IOW, you don't have any answers as to why you believe bullshit ID and reject evolution except that your religion dictates it.


mindfuck, I detest Religion, but believe in God.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 30, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. I didn't evolve from anything, neither did you. Our species evolved.


Did "They" come from Nothing, or did "They" come from "Something"?


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Your acceptance of A CREATOR will not impact me or any other poster here one iota. However, you seem content to remain ignorant and believe incorrect characterizations of the theory and the reality of CREATION. I only interceded in order to help clear up some of your confusion, but if you are unwilling to have a dialogue and prefer to spout the EVOLUTIONARY party-line drivel, then so be it. I will continue to correct your mischaracterizations and lies and you are free to continue to plug your fingers in your ears and avoid actually learning some science.


Cute, but a big FAIL when I'm not the one dismissing scientific truths. As to demonstrating the fact that species have evolved vs. demonstrating the 'fact' that there was an intelligent agent behind all life, I have mountains of empirical data to support a natural history to the diversity of life vs. ZERO evidence to support a designer. You have done absolutely NOTHING to clear up, or support your contention that there is a creator, you have only made fallacious strawman arguments against evolution.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Did "They" come from Nothing, or did "They" come from "Something"?


Everything came from something.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> mindfuck, I detest Religion, but believe in God.


Fine. Then your intractable theism dictates it. Yet I would bet that you believe in certain qualities about your god that are directly derived from the Judeo-Christian ethos. Most people that aren't religious have absolutely no problem incorporating their belief in a deity with science. What's your excuse?


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 30, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Everything came from something.


If everything came from something, then where did something come from?


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 30, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Fine. Then your intractable theism dictates it. Yet I would bet that you believe in certain qualities about your god that are directly derived from the Judeo-Christian ethos. Most people that aren't religious have absolutely no problem incorporating their belief in a deity with science. What's your excuse?


No one is void of being influenced by their Culture, including you. Your idea's about everything are limited by your upbringing, experience, and physical surroundings. There is nothing we can do about that.

I have no problem incorporating a Deity with Science, just like Einstein did.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 30, 2013)

mindphuk said:


> Cute, but a big FAIL when I'm not the one dismissing scientific truths. As to demonstrating the fact that species have evolved vs. demonstrating the 'fact' that there was an intelligent agent behind all life, I have mountains of empirical data to support a natural history to the diversity of life vs. ZERO evidence to support a designer. You have done absolutely NOTHING to clear up, or support your contention that there is a creator, you have only made fallacious strawman arguments against evolution.


Bullshit!!!!! Stawman arguments??? Fuck, I've listed plenty of examples that no one is responding too! I asked these questions in an earlier post, with no response, so go for it.

How does a bird fly thousands of miles to Alaska, a State almost 3 times the size of Texas, where they locate a pond no bigger than my house in the land of a "Million Lakes", finding a mate to procreate in the same place where they were born? No GPS. No Radar. No Map. No previous knowledge of that pond, accept when they were born. Where the fuck did that "Guidance System" come from? Explain to me how that Evolved.

I'm a fairly simple man, and I like to keep it that way. If someone tells me, "Hey, I just found names written on the beach with a sand castle to boot, and guess what??? No one was responsible!" Sorry, no comprenday'''! Evolution wants me to believe, that just happened without a valid explanation that can be proven. I say, SOMEONE was responsible for the sand castle and the written words.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> How does a bird fly thousands of miles to Alaska, a State almost 3 times the size of Texas, where they locate a pond no bigger than my house in the land of a "Million Lakes", finding a mate to procreate in the same place where they were born? No GPS. No Radar. No Map. No previous knowledge of that pond, accept when they were born. Where the fuck did that "Guidance System" come from? Explain to me how that &#8220;Evolved&#8221;.


It has been imprinted in their genetic code, they call it instinct. Elephants can do the same thing, it is something they inherit from their parents, who inherited it from theirs...for millions of years. 

Bro, nothing we can say... no question we answer will help you realize how biological evolution and natural selection work, like i've said before, just because you don't understand something does not automatically make it false.

I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to try to think objectively about this, without letting your emotions get involved... but that is always hard to ask when a concept conflicts with someones belief. 

This conversation will inevitablety end up in circles, you keep saying biological evolution and natural selection isn't true... and we'll keep telling you to do more research that you won't do. 

It's ok if you want to think evolution never happened, or still doesn't happen... but if you come to a website and give us your opinion about evolution we are going to laugh at your willed ignorance, make fun of you, and tell you to go back to school. You want it simple? Well im sorry, sometimes you have to work hard to understand evolution, natural selection, what stars are, how rainbows are made, how different formations of clouds are made, what neutron stars and pulsars are... 

Sometimes learning is hard... and those of us who have put the time into actually figuring out the truth about the way things work in this existence (rather than provide ourselves with made up truths) merely shrug and laugh at your laziness and willed ignorance.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> Bullshit!!!!! Stawman arguments??? Fuck, I've listed plenty of examples that no one is responding too! I asked these questions in an earlier post, with no response, so go for it.
> 
> How does a bird fly thousands of miles to Alaska, a State almost 3 times the size of Texas, where they locate a pond no bigger than my house in the land of a "Million Lakes", finding a mate to procreate in the same place where they were born? No GPS. No Radar. No Map. No previous knowledge of that pond, accept when they were born. Where the fuck did that "Guidance System" come from? Explain to me how that &#8220;Evolved&#8221;.


A lack of understanding of how every single biological process on this planet works, let alone evolved, in no way discredits evolution, and by no means makes supernatural intervention the only other possibility. In fact, if Darwin was completely overturned tomorrow, you still would have to provide evidence that organisms were created. Evolutionary theory is not the same as saying organisms evolved. Even Larmarckism is a form of evolution. The fact of evolution, that species change over time is indisputable Even most hard-core creationists accept the idea of 'microevolution.' But what exactly is macroevolution? Basically it means any level of evolutionary change larger than can be confirmed by direct observation. In other words, creationists claim to win all the battles they don't lose outright.


> I'm a fairly simple man, and I like to keep it that way. If someone tells me, "Hey, I just found names written on the beach with a sand castle to boot, and guess what??? No one was responsible!" Sorry, no comprenday'''! Evolution wants me to believe, that just happened without a valid explanation that can be proven. I say, SOMEONE was responsible for the sand castle and the written words.


That is a strawman. Show me a biological organism that has the signature of a creator. How do you determine design? By contrast to things that come about naturally. If something formed naturally, then it wasn't designed. Living organims have very good natural explanations. We don't see sandcastles forming naturally, sandcastles do not reproduce, therefore design. However, there are many geologic features that can appear designed, except we know they were formed naturally. http://izismile.com/2010/08/02/beautiful_and_strange_naturedesigned_formations_17_pics.html


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> How does a bird fly thousands of miles to Alaska, a State almost 3 times the size of Texas, where they locate a pond no bigger than my house in the land of a "Million Lakes", finding a mate to procreate in the same place where they were born? No GPS. No Radar. No Map. No previous knowledge of that pond, accept when they were born. Where the fuck did that "Guidance System" come from? Explain to me how that &#8220;Evolved&#8221;.


"A *God of the gaps argument is one that argues that since some phenomenon is unexplained, it must be due to God. It is also a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations."
*&#8203;http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=God_of_the_gaps


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> I have no problem incorporating a Deity with Science, just like Einstein did.


So you choose to double down on stupidity? Even after being informed of Einstein's religious views, you still think he believed in a deity? Perhaps this is why you don't believe in evolution, because anytime you are presented with knowledge that you do not like, you simply ignore it, which leaves your views steeped in ignorance.

Lets look at a couple of quotes from Einstein:

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. *I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.* My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly.* I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem*&#8212;the most important of all human problems."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. *If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.*"

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. *You may call me an agnostic*, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

It's silly to lie about something when it can so easily be checked. Lets also point out one more time that even if Einstein believed in Jesus it would not make Christianity any more true or false. Einstein was just a man, despite the fact that you are infatuated and impressed by his name.

There are plenty of preachers and holy men who hold this same duality. They will speak in front of their flock as if God is real while having serious doubts or outright non-belief themselves. But this alone does not make religion any more or less true. We are not speaking of men, we are speaking of a discipline which is very specific about it's rules and controls, the scientific method, and it's those very rules and controls which filter the idea of god out of science.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 30, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> If everything came from something, then where did something come from?


If God created everything, who created God?


----------



## tyler.durden (Jan 30, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> If God created everything, who created God?


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 30, 2013)

Einstein did not believe in any gods. When he spoke of God, he was speaking in metaphor. How do I know this? I've read many of his letters and journal entries. He talks of the God of Spinoza, which isn't anything like the traditional idea of God. 

Articles written and links compiled by a colleague of mine regarding Spinoza.
http://capone.mtsu.edu/rbombard/RB/spinoza.new.html\

Also, I mentioned it somewhere before but never linked too it. Since I was accused of lying, I thought I'd let you read it for yourselves. 
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdf
Topic: Preachers losing faith in seminary. I'm definitely not the only one.


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 31, 2013)

Heisenberg said:


> If God created everything, who created God?


This doesn't answer my question. You answer my question, first, then I'll answer yours. (BTW, I do have an answer for yours)


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 31, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> It has been imprinted in their genetic code, they call it instinct. Elephants can do the same thing, it is something they inherit from their parents, who inherited it from theirs...for millions of years.
> 
> Bro, nothing we can say... no question we answer will help you realize how biological evolution and natural selection work, like i've said before, just because you don't understand something does not automatically make it false.
> 
> ...


I never said that "Certain" types of Evolution don't take place. I'm not a dumb fuck! You put an animal in a cold climate and its fur will change and adapt to that climate. I have no problem understanding and believing this, BECAUSE, we have PROOF it truly happens. But let me make myself PERFECTLY CLEAR; I don't believe we Evolved from nothing to something, like this picture, and the example above does not prove we Evolved from monkeys to humans. 

And dont tell me that you guys dont believe this anymore because this is where all of this BULLSHIT started! By you backing away from this picture PROVES, you really arent sure where we came from and that you will change your mind as soon as the tide changes!

With me, God settles the score, not Religion. I see God clearly, by the things that are MADE, as the machine of a Human Body is nothing short of miracle, full of balance, math, defense mechanisms, emotion, and the ability to procreate!


----------



## Guitar Man (Jan 31, 2013)

NietzscheKeen said:


> Einstein did not believe in any gods. When he spoke of God, he was speaking in metaphor. How do I know this? I've read many of his letters and journal entries. He talks of the God of Spinoza, which isn't anything like the traditional idea of God.
> 
> Articles written and links compiled by a colleague of mine regarding Spinoza.
> http://capone.mtsu.edu/rbombard/RB/spinoza.new.html\
> ...


NietzscheKeen, the article you posted in no way PROVES Einstein didn't believe in God. It doesn't matter if he talked about the God of Muhammad, Einstein believed in a "Higher Power", and the attached article points this out CLEARLY. His feelings were much like mine, as he saw God through the study, observance, and the miracle of Creation. Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"It may seem logical, in retrospect, that a combination of awe and rebellion made Einstein exceptional as a scientist. But what is less well known is that those two traits also combined to shape his spiritual journey and determine the nature of his faith. The rebellion part comes in at the beginning of his life: he rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a sincere belief in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists."


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html#ixzz2Ja0BHrst​


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 31, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> I never said that "Certain" types of Evolution don't take place. I'm not a dumb fuck! You put an animal in a cold climate and its fur will change and adapt to that climate. I have no problem understanding and believing this, BECAUSE, we have PROOF it truly happens. But let me make myself PERFECTLY CLEAR; I don't believe we Evolved from nothing to something, like this picture, and the example above does not prove we Evolved from monkeys to humans.
> 
> And dont tell me that you guys dont believe this anymore because this is where all of this BULLSHIT started! By you backing away from this picture PROVES, you really arent sure where we came from and that you will change your mind as soon as the tide changes!
> 
> ...


Ok then, taking away hundreds of years of scientific evaluation... what is your simple hypothesis on how the homo-sapien species of animal began to appear on the planet? 

It seems to me as if you are implying that the homo-sapien animal did not have to go through the processes of evolution and natural selection unlike every single other creature on the planet.

So do tell, what is your hypothesis on how our species of animal began to roam the earth?



Also, Einstein did not believe in a personal god... stop trying to twist words to fit your own desires dude. *Yes, he may have believed in a god, but definitely not one that meddles in human animal affairs. *

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in _Albert Einstein: The Human Side_


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 31, 2013)

Guitar Man said:


> This doesn't answer my question. You answer my question, first, then I'll answer yours. (BTW, I do have an answer for yours)


My question is the same as yours. I never said something came from nothing, or something came from something. This is another strawman you are trying to assign. The big bang makes no mention of what occurred before it, as the theory is unconcerned with that fact. Just as evolution describes how life evolved, not how life came into being.




Guitar Man said:


> I never said that "Certain" types of Evolution don't take place. I'm not a dumb fuck! You put an animal in a cold climate and its fur will change and adapt to that climate. I have no problem understanding and believing this, BECAUSE, we have PROOF it truly happens. But let me make myself PERFECTLY CLEAR; I don't believe we Evolved from nothing to something, like this picture, and the example above does not prove we Evolved from monkeys to humans.
> 
> And don&#8217;t tell me that you guys don&#8217;t believe this anymore because this is where all of this BULLSHIT started! By you backing away from this picture PROVES, you really aren&#8217;t sure where we came from and that you will change your mind as soon as the tide changes!
> 
> ...


So in school you payed no attention to detail and instead just looked at the pictures and made your own assumptions, and now you want us to argue against those assumptions.

You can only offer strawmen because the words coming out of our mouths aren't easy to answer, and so you put some in there that are. You live in a pretend world where you pretend to be right.



> With me, God settles the score, not Religion. I see God clearly, by the things that are MADE, as the machine of a Human Body is nothing short of miracle, full of balance, math, defense mechanisms, emotion, and the ability to procreate!


That's fine for you but stop using your limited imagination to judge others. Some of us are capable of studying life without assigning imaginary agents.


----------



## guy incognito (Jan 31, 2013)




----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 31, 2013)

In all fairness, I had some pretty terrible teachers in my highschool. Several of them were fundamentalists that refused to teach evolution, etc. instead they offered strawman arguments and false information. Maybe he had a teacher such as this...
If that is the case, then he obviously doesn't care about the truth or a quality education because there are numerous sources that will give him a true understanding of the theories. 
You have to know what your opponent is arguing before you can even begin to counter argue or fact check, okay? Unfortunately for all of us, he thinks he HAS an understanding of it when all he has is a rehashed creationist version of the theory of evolution and big bang.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jan 31, 2013)

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 31, 2013)

i know this probably belongs in my thread, but i thought it relevant, i just hope dude doesn't skip your amazing post Heis.


----------



## NietzscheKeen (Jan 31, 2013)

Oh the Christadelphians... I spent some time with them too.


----------



## abandonconflict (Jan 31, 2013)

Believes in Karma.




Doesn't feel the need
to preach.


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Jan 31, 2013)

abandonconflict said:


> Believes in Karma.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Said no one, ever. lol


----------



## NKultra242 (Apr 4, 2013)

think for yourself, to whoever feels they need approval from others to do what they truly feel in their heart is harmless and good.


----------



## eye exaggerate (Apr 5, 2013)

Zaehet Strife said:


> i know this probably belongs in my thread, but i thought it relevant, i just hope dude doesn't skip your amazing post Heis.


----------



## nameno (May 5, 2013)

Ya'll know some big words,I'm simple.After I became willing to try God's way with an open mind I came to believe in him.I didn't understand the bible until I asked him to come into MY life. I asked him to show me he was real & I saw things happening in my life I couldn't explain.Now I know the bible is living,God is real & Jesus rose from the dead. I don't claim to be a saint or perfect nor do I expect to be,but I try to live by his instructions.

I leave something to think about:
Ashes to ashes
dust to dust
if he believed in Jesus
He'd be going to heaven with us.Peace


----------



## brotherjericho (May 5, 2013)

Thread too long, did not read to see if this was posted...is smoking cannabis a sin in Christianity? Depends on your laws, if it is illegal then it is a sin.

Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.


----------

