Sin?? well i gots a question

[J3K]

Today when I was talking with a few friends one of my friends who is religious was talking about this house him and a bunch of people are going to for 3 days to worhsip god. And an immature friend of mine was like "whats the fun in that" and i was like "you dont have to smoke pot and have sex to have fun at a get together." Then one of my friends commented on how i have sex. and my religous friend was like "yeah, he's like a dog in heat." and i was like "at least i dont smoke pot." and i dont do anything along the lines of drugs period. but he was like "well sex is a sin, pot isnt." and this is where i am curious, why is sex before marriage a sin, but smoking pot and popping pills not? or is it? im confused and just wanted an answer on this please. if it is, some details about where to find it in the bible or whereever. I am not religious, and have nothing against those who are, but I just find it wrong that sex is a sin, and drugs aren't.

Dude, you are right. You are one confused mammajamma.

Why on Earth would you want advice on sin at a skeptic's forum? Do you go to the deli and ask for a flower arrangement?

[Skeptical Greg]

One man's sin is another man's religion.

[thaiboxerken]

It's because they aren't getting any tail.

Originally posted by Diogenes
One man's sin is another man's religion.

To quote Douglas Adams, you should send that in to Readers Digest. They have a page for people like you.

J3K -

Whatever religion a person is a hostage of defines what "sin" is for them. You aren't required to think. In your case, it sounds like your friends are Christians: if so, your friends are right, fornication is clearly "sinful" by the Bible's rules. Drugs, on the contrary, are not mentioned anywhere as being sinful.

So get your hand out of her pants and smoke a doob.

Have you ever bothered to actually read the Bible? Doesn't sound like it.

[Ian Osborne]

The Bible says Christians should obey the laws of the state as long as they don't contradict the teachings of the Bible, so taking drugs is a sin.

Besides, the Bible also says the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, which would make abusing it an act of sacrilege.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The Bible says Christians should obey the laws of the state as long as they don't contradict the teachings of the Bible, so taking drugs is a sin.

Besides, the Bible also says the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, which would make abusing it an act of sacrilege.

The Bible says no such thing. And it is strictly your opinion what constitutes abuse.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by sundog
The Bible says no such thing. And it is strictly your opinion what constitutes abuse.

Matthew 22:15-21
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Ezra 7:26
Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king must surely be punished by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment.

1 Corinthians 6:19
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Matthew 22:15-21
15Then the Pharisees went out...

I knew you'd drag out the "render unto Caeser" chestnut. It's clear from the context that Jesus is saying, don't avoid paying taxes. This has nothing to do with the argument, though simple-minded people have twisted it to mean what you're thinking for 2000 years.

EZRA???? LOL! Shall we start going through all the bizarre things the Old Testament version of God says are sins?

The Corinthians quote is irrelevant, as I pointed out before, unless you can show me a definitive list of what "defiling" the body is.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by sundog
I knew you'd drag out the "render unto Caeser" chestnut. It's clear from the context that Jesus is saying, don't avoid paying taxes.

And therefore recognises the legitimacy of the state...

EZRA???? LOL! Shall we start going through all the bizarre things the Old Testament version of God says are sins?

What would you be proving if you did? I never said the Bible was sensible - only that it supports obedience to state laws.

The Corinthians quote is off-topic, as I pointed out before.

Why? If the Bible tells you the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, surely that means you don't abuse it with drugs? Again, I'm not endorsing the Bible's position - just sharing it.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


And therefore recognises the legitimacy of the state...



Nope. Meaning that Jesus knew full well that he'd be in BIG trouble if he decided to lead a tax revolt.


Why? If the Bible tells you the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, surely that means you don't abuse it with drugs? Again, I'm not endorsing the Bible's position - just sharing it.

"Abuse it with drugs"? WTF? Who is defining it as abuse, you? I'm afraid that doesn't count.

The Bible does not refer to drug use at all.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by sundog


I knew you'd drag out the "render unto Caeser" chestnut. It's clear from the context that Jesus is saying, don't avoid paying taxes. This has nothing to do with the argument, though simple-minded people have twisted it to mean what you're thinking for 2000 years.

Hmmm... another pesky mind reader--

EZRA???? LOL! Shall we start going through all the bizarre things the Old Testament version of God says are sins?

Perhaps, "Whoever does not obey the law of your God and the law of the king must surely be punished by death, banishment, confiscation of property, or imprisonment,"
was a direct response to your having said, "The Bible says no such thing," regarding the idea that Christians should obey the laws of the state. It seems to. Other "bizarre things" contained in Ezra are irrelevant.

The Corinthians quote is irrelevant, as I pointed out before, unless you can show me a definitive list of what "defiling" the body is.

Perhaps, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own," is a direct response to your having said, "The Bible says no such thing," regarding the idea that "the body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, which would make abusing it an act of sacrilege." Again, it seems to.

sundog:
The Bible says no such thing.

Okay. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by sundog
Nope. Meaning that Jesus knew full well that he'd be in BIG trouble if he decided to lead a tax revolt.

Have you any evidence that he wanted to? The fact that he would be in 'BIG trouble' if he did seems moot - it didn't stop him starting a near-riot at the temple.

"Abuse it with drugs"? WTF? Who is defining it as abuse, you? I'm afraid that doesn't count. The Bible does not refer to drug use at all.

Maybe you could attempt to define abuse? While some drugs are more harmful than others, I think most would agree smoking pot is, to some extent, bodily abuse. It's far more carcenogenic than tobacco, for example...

[J3K]

Sundog. I have not read the bible, because I am not christian. Hints why I came here. I knew there were religious people on this forum and that the ones who aren't religious, some of them will know religion very well because they look into it to find their beliefs(to find whether they agree with a religion or not) That is why I came here and asked. After we find an end to this debate, I will know whether drugs(which do abuse the body, such as pot) are a sin to use. Because I find it very stupid that christians will tell me I am sinning because I have sex, but the fact they smoke pot ect... is not a sin. I just want the answer as to whether it really isn't or not.
Sorry if that was confusing.

[OdderMensch]

this is a from memory quote of a briliant comedion.

Makeing pot against the law is like saying God made a mistake. It's like God looked down and said 'There it is, my creation, perfect and holy in every way, now I can rest.' 'Oh my Me! I left F'n pot everywhere. $hit! I never should of smoked that joint on the third day. Man, if they find pot everywhere they're gonna think their supposed to use it. Now I have create Republicans.
-Bill Hicks

Dont forget, "every herb and seed bearing plant" was given to man. ;)

Oh and the cancer thing :rolleyes:, myth.

[fidiot]

Bill Hicks was the best.

[Franko]

J3K:

why is sex before marriage a sin, but smoking pot and popping pills not? or is it? im confused and just wanted an answer on this please. if it is, some details about where to find it in the bible or whereever. I am not religious, and have nothing against those who are, but I just find it wrong that sex is a sin, and drugs aren't.

I don’t know if you are looking for strictly the Christian perspective on this issue or not, but personally … I am highly dubious of anyone that claims God considers anything a sin other than causing harm to another individual. If your action effects no one other than yourself, and it makes you happy, then I think it is safe to assume that God is happy for you.

For example, I once knew this Girl who liked to be spanked ... (looks around) ... ahhh, but perhaps I should save that story for another Time ...

[J3K]

Thanx Franko. But yes. I am looking for the Christian point of view on this. thanx though.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by J3K
Thanx Franko. But yes. I am looking for the Christian point of view on this. thanx though.

When are you going to learn that christians, and most theists, will modify their religions to suit their desires and needs?

[Ladewig]

Maybe you could attempt to define abuse? While some drugs are more harmful than others, I think most would agree smoking pot is, to some extent, bodily abuse. It's far more carcenogenic than tobacco, for example...

There's a lot of drinking in the Bible, yet evidence shows that consuming alcohol is more of an abuse to one's body than smoking pot. Pot smokers don't have blackouts and pot overdoses are never fatal, unlike alcohol overdoses.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
this is a from memory quote of a briliant comedion.
Makeing pot against the law is like saying God made a mistake. It's like God looked down and said 'There it is, my creation, perfect and holy in every way, now I can rest.' 'Oh my Me! I left F'n pot everywhere. $hit! I never should of smoked that joint on the third day. Man, if they find pot everywhere they're gonna think their supposed to use it. Now I have create Republicans.

Dont forget, "every herb and seed bearing plant" was given to man. ;)

No one said it had to be dried, broken into flakes, crumbled, wrapped in paper, set fire to and the smoke drawn into one's lungs though. Remember, the hemp plant is great for making rope and paper. The argument that 'if God didn't mean us to smoke it he wouldn't have created it' is as ridiculous as 'if God wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings'.

Oh and the cancer thing :rolleyes:, myth.

Tell that to Bob Marley...

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Ladewig
There's a lot of drinking in the Bible, yet evidence shows that consuming alcohol is more of an abuse to one's body than smoking pot. Pot smokers don't have blackouts and pot overdoses are never fatal, unlike alcohol overdoses.

I was once told that not everything the Bible refers to as 'wine' was in fact alcoholic - much of it was unfermented. I've no reference for that, though.

In any case, alcohol can be beneficial in reasonable quantities. Unlike tobacco or dope, it's not always bad for you.

The Bible certainly condemns drunkenness - St Paul says, 'Do not get drunk on wine for that will ruin you'.

[Yahzi]

I gotta go with Sundog halfway here. I think the Bible does contain enough references to obeying the laws of the state, but I also think that the whole body as a temple thing meant don't masturbate. Drinking wasn't considered bad, and the only reason you don't have biblical accounts of Jesus toking is because they didn't have any weed.

J3K
The answer you are looking for is, sex is considered bad by the bible because it's fun. Smoking dope is actually pretty boring, so the bible doesn't care.

It's a sin to have sex without marriage, but Jesus and Paul would be happier if you didn't have sex even in marriage. You are correct in that this is a stupid position, but hey... that's the point.

[Yahzi]

Unlike tobacco or dope, it's not always bad for you.
Dope (meaning I assume marijuana) isn't bad for you. It is non-toxic.

It isn't good for you, but that's not the same thing. Video games aren't good for you, but playing them once in a while is hardly something to get hysterical about.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Yahzi
The only reason you don't have biblical accounts of Jesus toking is because they didn't have any weed.

Have you got any reason whatsoever to believe that he *would* have smoked if he *did* have weed? This is just a piece of nonsense for which you offer no evidence.

Sex is considered bad by the bible because it's fun.

Promiscuity and sex outside marriage is considered bad because birth control was very unreliable, and if it wasn't for these socio-religious taboos, women would be permanently pregnant and settlements would have far more non-productive members (ie. children too young to work and their adult carers) than they could possibly support. Think of it as a piece of social darwinism.

It's a sin to have sex without marriage, but Jesus and Paul would be happier if you didn't have sex even in marriage. You are correct in that this is a stupid position, but hey... that's the point.

Paul certainly said the unmarried state was ideal for a follower of Christ (no worldly distractions), but don't forget he expected the Second Coming to be imminent. He just didn't see the need to plan very far ahead.

Dope (meaning I assume marijuana) isn't bad for you. It is non-toxic.

If you ignore the evidence linking heavy smoking with psychosis and the irrefutable links with cancer, I guess it is non-toxic.

[thaiboxerken]

Promiscuity and sex outside marriage is considered bad because birth control was very unreliable, and if it wasn't for these socio-religious taboos, women would be permanently pregnant and settlements would have far more non-productive members (ie. children too young to work and their adult carers) than they could possibly support. Think of it as a piece of social darwinism.

Hardly, it's more likely that these things were written as being "bad" in the bible because one of the authors felt bad about his gf or wife sleeping with another man. These people also didn't like homosexuals or butt-sex either, so these things became 'sin' as well.

Birth control being unreliable isn't a good reason for sex outside marriage to be considered bad. If this was the motivation of the "sex being bad outside of marriage" in the bible, wouldn't it follow that they also tell you to have sex only until you have as many kids as you want? Married women would still be permanenly pregnant, by your reasoning.

If you ignore the evidence linking heavy smoking with psychosis and the irrefutable links with cancer, I guess it is non-toxic.

I agree, many pot-smoking advocates do ignore the dangerous side-effects of MJ. Hey, I think it should be legal, but to spread lies to make it so is as bad as the left-wingers spreading lies to keep it illegal. MJ is not "non-toxic".

[MRC_Hans]

Basically, I think the idea that especially women should stay virgin till married is more widespread and much older than Christianity. I suppose males simply wanted to be sure that the child they were bringing up was their own. Male lions that take over a harem will simply kill all cubs, thus ensuring that the cubs they use energy in protecting are sired by themselves.

Hans

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
If you ignore the evidence linking heavy smoking with psychosis and the irrefutable links with cancer, I guess it is non-toxic.

Ok, you've made this claim twice now. Please provide links (or actual text) of the studies that show that marijuana has 'irrefutable links with cancer' and that it is 'far more carcenogenic than tobacco'.

These are claims I've not seen evidence for yet.

Adam

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Yahzi
but I also think that the whole body as a temple thing meant don't masturbate.

The "don't masturbate" thing is a bit unclear (http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba3.htm). Dunno if there's any direct references to its prescription other than as a result of translation, but that's one of the probs of trying to translate and generalise a very specific set of cultural practices to the rest of the world. Kind of like using an Ikea instruction guide as a design for life ;)

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hardly, it's more likely that these things were written as being "bad" in the bible because one of the authors felt bad about his gf or wife sleeping with another man.

I wasn't suggesting the authors of The Bible decided to stigmatise promiscuity to prevent unchecked birth. It wasn't a concious decision - rather, religion represents the formalisation of already-existing attitudes within primative societies. And if those societies did not develop those attitudes (which were later labelled as morals), over-birth would strain its resources beyond breaking point.

The desire to pass on one's genes is a basic function of all creatures. Mankind faces near-unique problems in that it takes at least a decade for a new-born to become a useful member of society, so without the protection of its social group, it would die and the genes would not be passed on. Hence, as societies grew more complex, its traditions took this road. This social evolution is no more planned than biological evolution.

The fact that most of the world's religions form similar attitudes would suggest it isn't down to the authors of The Bible having unfaithful partners.

These people also didn't like homosexuals or butt-sex either, so these things became 'sin' as well.

This is due to a fear of anything that's different, another necessity in primative, tribal societies where the unknown could often get you killed. Of course, these taboos have long outlived their usefulness - today's societies are made stronger by celebrating our differences and making use of diverse skills and talents. For example, Alan Turing (a homosexual) was instrumental in the development of early computers, and would've continued to be so had he not killed himself when he was 'outed'. Also, without the support and help of the rest of society, Stephen Hawking could not survive, robbing physics of one of its brightest lights.

Of course, this means the far-right neandertals who still persecute anyone different from themselves are an evolutionary throwback, which is ironic considering their views on other races.

Birth control being unreliable isn't a good reason for sex outside marriage to be considered bad. If this was the motivation of the "sex being bad outside of marriage" in the bible, wouldn't it follow that they also tell you to have sex only until you have as many kids as you want? Married women would still be permanenly pregnant, by your reasoning.

Once again, it wasn't a master plan - rather, the formalisation of already-accepted attitudes.

I agree, many pot-smoking advocates do ignore the dangerous side-effects of MJ. Hey, I think it should be legal, but to spread lies to make it so is as bad as the left-wingers spreading lies to keep it illegal. MJ is not "non-toxic".

Don't you mean right-wingers?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


Ok, you've made this claim twice now. Please provide links (or actual text) of the studies that show that marijuana has 'irrefutable links with cancer' and that it is 'far more carcenogenic than tobacco'.

These are claims I've not seen evidence for yet.

Adam Since it has taken us several decades to quantify efficiently the correlation between tobacco and those dieases, despite its widespread use, any findings regarding marijuana must be very imprecise as of yet. Especially considering the caveats inherent in studying long-term effects of an illegal substance.

Hans

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[...]the left-wingers spreading lies to keep it illegal[...]

:rotflmao: You've never visited Europe then...

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
Ok, you've made this claim twice now. Please provide links (or actual text) of the studies that show that marijuana has 'irrefutable links with cancer' and that it is 'far more carcenogenic than tobacco'.

http://www.cancerpage.com/cancernews/cancernews5141.htm

http://www.friendlystranger.com/info/recreational/smokepotriskslungcancer.htm

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


When are you going to learn that christians, and most theists, will modify their religions to suit their desires and needs?

When are you going to learn that pseudo-skeptics and "athiest" , will modify their beleifs to suit their desires and needs?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14332

Thanks,
S&S

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by S&S
When are you going to learn that pseudo-skeptics and "athiest" , will modify their beleifs to suit their desires and needs?

No, to incorporate new evidence.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14332

Talk about missing the point...

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


No, to incorporate new evidence.

[B]

Talk about missing the point...

Hi Ian:

My point was : those same members of that cult have a double speech.

They are having fun now with those pictures , but when they "replied" at the "swett affair" they "protested" because I send a notarized application about a paranormal event during the 9/11, although I always said to the JREF and Randi my opinion about that world criminal and tragic attack, and separated the subjects.
Bidlack also had that poor"excuse", but now is on silence about that mockering.

The point is : you put here words that are on the Bible that are references to the starting post in this thread.
The way people can interpretate those words, is not the Bible fault.
Are mistakes of fanatics that belong to cults.

Cults are not an exclusive for religions groups. Cults can be even in the skeptic and athiest society.

Is not the fault of the skeptic society. Is not the fault of athiest society. Is fault of the fanatics or pseudo- skeptics and pseudo-athiest that act like they are part of a cult and will modify their beleifs to suit their desires and needs.


Thanks,
S&S

[thaiboxerken]

They are having fun now with those pictures , but when they "replied" at the "swett affair" they "protested" because I send a notarized application about a paranormal event during the 9/11, although I always said to the JREF and Randi my opinion about that world criminal and tragic attack, and separated the subjects.

LOL, you have pictures of a 'paranormal' event? I suggest you show them to your local psychologist.

The way people can interpretate those words, is not the Bible fault.
Are mistakes of fanatics that belong to cults.

Cults like christianity are always interpreting the bible to suit their needs.

This is a forum, not a cult. If it was a cult, you would've been banned by now.

[Franko]

Thaifoodmoron:
Cults like christianity are always interpreting the bible to suit their needs.

Pessimistic Cults like A-Theism are always interpreting the "science" to suit their needs.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

[b]The way people can interpretate those words, is not the Bible fault.
Are mistakes of fanatics that belong to cults.

Cults like christianity are always interpreting the bible to suit their needs.

This is a forum, not a cult. If it was a cult, you would've been banned by now.

Charlatan:

Where is your evidence that I wrote that the entire forum is a cult?

In this forum are members whose stupids nor arguments and without evidences replies, are actions that are identified to the cults.
All the cults are dangerous for humanity. They are using and washing your brain , they are looking for your money.

Now keep on enjoying your cult. Be happy.

Thanks,
S&S

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by S&S


In this forum are members whose stupids nor arguments and without evidences replies, are actions that are identified to the cults.

[snipp]

Now keep on enjoying your cult.
Let me guess. Some called something you believe in a "cult"?

Bitter much?

[Ian Osborne]

This was a useful thread until the usual suspects turned up with their A-theism-is-a-cult crap. Oh well - nothing stays on the rails long in R&P...

Another victim of Free Speech At All Costs. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Upchurch

Let me guess. Some called something you believe in a "cult"?

Bitter much?

Just guessing? Another ability you have?

Comon, join "The CulT"
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14066

Thanks,
S&S

[J3K]

yes it was a useful thread. So can we have a final word on whether it is said in the Bible where doing drugs is sin? If there is just something in there that said not to abuse your body, this would be perfectly fine. Since pot does abuse your body, whether it be very small or not. I just want an answer.

The Bible is clearly far more concerned that you keep it in your pants, than whether or not you take a toke or two. It mentions fornication specifically and often, while there doesn't seem to be any firm proof that it prohibits drugs at all. So any way you look at it, your friends are right and you are wrong. I know that's not the answer you want, sorry.

Those that think the Bible says that breaking the law is a sin: What about countries where reading the Bible is prohibited? Is reading the Bible a sin there? There is no waffle-free answer to this.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by sundog
your friends are right and you are wrong.

I take the opposite view, and would argue the verses I quoted earlier show the Bible demands obedience to the laws of state (assuming they don't contradict Christianity), and forbids causing deliberate damage to your body, a temple of the Holy Spirit.

The reason the Bible is less direct about drug abuse is, quite simply, that there were no illegal recreational drugs at that time and location. Guidance must be through inference, but if your Xtian friends argue the Bible is relevent today, they cannot have a problem with this. After all, the Bible says nothing about computer hacking, skyjacking or drink-driving, for those very same reasons. Are they all deemed acceptable?

[J3K]

alrighty sundog. I am wrong, unless this debate ends otherwise. This is just another reason I find parts of christianity so dumb. Or maybe not that, but the ignorance of some who follow it. For people to use it as their perfectly fine reason to smoke pot and do drugs, is well, stupid. This could also be because my friends are teenagers as I am. I just find it highly immature for someone to bitch at me for sinning because I have sex with someone I love and care about very deeply, but they don't do wrong smoking and/or popping this and that just for a temporary buzz. I do not agree with any of that stuff, but I have never once shunned them for doing it. Oh well, life goes on. Once one of them gets in huge trouble for doing it(if this happens. it might, it might not, but if it does...) ignorance will truely be bliss.

Sorry for ranting. lol. But who can call be wrong for feeling this way?? I live my life the way I believe is right(wierd how I am the atheist, they are the christians, yet I have gotten in a very small fraction of the trouble most of them have.) and I have no problem with them believing what they want too, just dont blow your beliefs on me and tell me how wrong I am. I don't do it to you. ya know?

[thaiboxerken]

Charlatan:

Where is your evidence that I wrote that the entire forum is a cult?

Ok, just most of the members of the forum are you calling a cult and the oranization that supports the forum as well.


In this forum are members whose stupids nor arguments and without evidences replies, are actions that are identified to the cults.

I don't understand this attempt at a sentence. Please try it again.

All the cults are dangerous for humanity. They are using and washing your brain , they are looking for your money.

This is true, but where is the JREF doing this? Randi and his buddies are merely passing out information, they let the people of opposing views speak as well. Brainwashing is a process in cults that utilizes isolation techniques, exposure to ideas that contradict what is being programmed will prevent the brainwashing to be effective. There is no brainwashing going on here in this forum, the JREF site doesn't use brainwashing techniques. If you have evidence of brainwashing, please come forth with it.

They ask for money and don't threaten "hell" or other consequence for donating, neither do they claim some kind of reward for donating. Cults demand money from their members. I have given the JREF no money.


Now keep on enjoying your cult. Be happy.

Thanks,
S&S [/QUOTE]

This is just like another tactic that theists use, calling atheism a religion. Sorry, but there are no significant traits of the JREF that can be used to call it a cult. There are no gods, no leaders, no demands of members to carry out... it is just a few people of similar views interacting and working together.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
If you ignore the evidence linking heavy smoking with psychosis and the irrefutable links with cancer, I guess it is non-toxic.

It's the dose that makes the poison; do you have the least bit of evidence to support the notion that the use of small to moderate infrequent uses of pot in any way "abuse" the body, even to the smallest degree?

If alot of something is bad for you, that does not mean that doing a little of that same thing is bad for you.


Edited to note: Furthermore, if doing a little of something is good for you or is not harmful, that does not mean that doing a lot of that some thing is good or not harmful.

Once again, it is the dose that makes the poison.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Charlatan:

Where is your evidence that I wrote that the entire forum is a cult?

Ok, just most of the members of the forum are you calling a cult and the oranization that supports the forum as well.


In this forum are members whose stupids nor arguments and without evidences replies, are actions that are identified to the cults.

I don't understand this attempt at a sentence. Please try it again.

All the cults are dangerous for humanity. They are using and washing your brain , they are looking for your money.

This is true, but where is the JREF doing this? Randi and his buddies are merely passing out information, they let the people of opposing views speak as well. Brainwashing is a process in cults that utilizes isolation techniques, exposure to ideas that contradict what is being programmed will prevent the brainwashing to be effective. There is no brainwashing going on here in this forum, the JREF site doesn't use brainwashing techniques. If you have evidence of brainwashing, please come forth with it.

They ask for money and don't threaten "hell" or other consequence for donating, neither do they claim some kind of reward for donating. Cults demand money from their members. I have given the JREF no money.


Now keep on enjoying your cult. Be happy.

Thanks,
S&S

This is just like another tactic that theists use, calling atheism a religion. Sorry, but there are no significant traits of the JREF that can be used to call it a cult. There are no gods, no leaders, no demands of members to carry out... it is just a few people of similar views interacting and working together. [/QUOTE]

Charlatan:

Is that your EVIDENCE that I am calling the entire JREF forum a cult? Where is it?
Just writing " Ok, just most of the members of the forum are you calling a cult and the oranization that supports the forum as well." is an EVIDENCE? Those are just your interpretations, put a real evidence , put a quote where I wrote that the entire JREF forum is a cult.
Your words confirm how a cult answer. You are part of those few members of this open forum whose reactions and replies (without evidences) show how they really are: pseudo-skeptics and fanatics brain washed.

Put Evidences or keep on enjoying your cult.

Thanks,
S&S

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by J3K
I just find it highly immature for someone to bitch at me for sinning because I have sex with someone I love and care about very deeply, but they don't do wrong smoking and/or popping this and that just for a temporary buzz. I do not agree with any of that stuff, but I have never once shunned them for doing it.

<of course they are immature, they're teenagers!> Well there is no need to anwser this question publicly (it's retorical) but do you practice safe sex? Are you haveing sex all the time, during class or work times? Are you haveing sex in public, while driveing?

I'll asume the answer to most of this is no, you likely have sex in the private, and i'll assumee you know the results of unsafe sex.

i'd argue that niether of these acts (sex vs drug use) are harmful when practiced with care


Originally posted by Ian Osborne


No one said it had to be dried, broken into flakes, crumbled, wrapped in paper, set fire to and the smoke drawn into one's lungs though.

You seem to know alot about the process, are you....:cool:?

Smokeing is only one of the many ways to gain use from the flower.


Remember, the hemp plant is great for making rope and paper. The argument that 'if God didn't mean us to smoke it he wouldn't have created it' is as ridiculous as 'if God wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings'. ...

If there was a God, and God wanted us to fly, we'd be flying by now. :D




Originally posted by Plutarck

Edited to note: Furthermore, if doing a little of something is good for you or is not harmful, that does not mean that doing a lot of that some thing is good or not harmful.

True, moderation in all things.

However, I maintain that MJ, crude, smoked MJ at that, is non-toxic, and less harmfull overall than most foods we eat. If I had to abuse one substance, either ice cream or MJ (note : by abuse I mean overuse and unsafe use) I'd choose MJ. I think I'd turn out healthier in the long run.

However since I belive in free will ;), I rarely, if ever eat ice cream, I'm lactose intolorent :p

[J3K]

OdderMensch
Yes, I know both acts are pretty much harmless with practiced with "care"(I have just never heard anybody say it like that.) I don't believe in smoking pot and doing drugs. But that's really a useless point except it means, they do it and I don't. What I disagree with is how they use religion as an excuse to do the stuff, and then shun me because of what that religion says. I just highly doubt any preacher or any church person would say smoking pot is ok. Oh well, life goes on.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Your words confirm how a cult answer. You are part of those few members of this open forum whose reactions and replies (without evidences) show how they really are: pseudo-skeptics and fanatics brain washed.

Put Evidences or keep on enjoying your cult.

Thanks,
S&S

So, what is this so-called cult you speak of? Who is the leader, what are their beliefs and tenets? How is it that I'm a member of it??

Where is the brainwashing? No, you made the claim that I'm in a cult, show me the evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

I'll asume the answer to most of this is no, you likely have sex in the private, and i'll assumee you know the results of unsafe sex.

I don't see how one can assume sex is wrong simply because of diseases out there and unwanted pregnancies. I'd say that unsafe sex is stupid, but not wrong.

i'd argue that niether of these acts (sex vs drug use) are harmful when practiced with care.

There is still a risk, but I wouldn't say it's wrong.

If there was a God, and God wanted us to fly, we'd be flying by now. :D

Humans fly all of the time, it's been this way since before I was born and I'm 30.

True, moderation in all things.

I don't agree. I think a little bit of death is just as bad for a person as alot of death. MJ is harmful to a person, just like cigarettes.. I still think that it should be legal though.

However, I maintain that MJ, crude, smoked MJ at that, is non-toxic, and less harmfull overall than most foods we eat. If I had to abuse one substance, either ice cream or MJ (note : by abuse I mean overuse and unsafe use) I'd choose MJ. I think I'd turn out healthier in the long run.

You are fooling yourself, smoking MJ is still toxic and builds up all kinds of nastiness in the lungs. People usually don't smoke MJ as much as cigarette smokers smoke cigs though, so MJ attributed cancer and illness is low. And it's also hard to find the affects of people that smoke MJ only because these same people often smoke cigarettes as well.

Based on my own experiences, unscientific, most pot-smokers I've met have been dull individuals without ambition.

Originally posted by J3K
alrighty sundog. Sorry for ranting. lol.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think either one of them is a "sin". I don't use the word to describe things in my value system, but if I did, a "sin" in my book would be something that harms another person - and that's ALL.

I say just smile at your friends and do what you want to.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


The reason the Bible is less direct about drug abuse is, quite simply, that there were no illegal recreational drugs at that time and location.

This is simply wrong. Are you under the impression that recreational drugs are a modern invention? See the thread on this very forum that shows that cannabis was used in religious ceremonies in Jesus's time. Opium was being used as early as 4,000 BC!

The legality of the drug enters the question only if you admit that there is no other possible basis for the prohibition of its use in the Bible, otherwise its legality is immaterial to the argument. To counter the Ezra argument it is only necessary to point out that there are countless "laws" in the Old Testament that not even Reform Jews follow, much less Christians, and J3K has said he is interested in the Christian outlook.

No Christian sect holds the Jewish laws in the Old Testament to be valid rules for living... or rather, they pick and choose what they like and ignore the rest. :D

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


So, what is this so-called cult you speak of? Who is the leader, what are their beliefs and tenets? How is it that I'm a member of it??

Where is the brainwashing? No, you made the claim that I'm in a cult, show me the evidence.

Charlatan:

You accused me first that I wrote that the entire JREF is a cult.
You were the one who should showed the evidence of that afirmation you did.
You were not able to do it, then you are just a charlatan defending charlatans like you. The charlatan's cult.

Enjoy it.
Thanks,
S&S

[Franko]

Charlatan:

You accused me first that I wrote that the entire JREF is a cult.
You were the one who should showed the evidence of that afirmation you did.
You were not able to do it, then you are just a charlatan defending charlatans like you. The charlatan's cult.

Don't even waste your breathe on Thaifoodweeny, Carlos. he's a lost cause ... :(

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by J3K
Why is sex before marriage a sin

This is a case in which religious teaching intersects sensible social policy. Until the invention of reliable birth control, a society in which premarital sex was not frowned upon would generate too many single women with children. Children are more likely to survive and prosper if there are two parents around instead of only one. At the same time this taboo produced a modest break on promiscuity, which helped reduce the spread of STDs, which until this century were untreatable. Thus, the taboo against premarital sex has good secular motivation which is reinforced by a religious teaching.

Those secular motives are not as big a deal anymore now that cheap and effective birth control is available, as well as STDs that are mostly treatable, but the religious dogma lingers.

However, there is a good secular economic reason to want the taboo to persist. Statistically, it's very easy to stay out of poverty in one's life -- just follow 3 easy rules: (1) graduate from high school, (2) don't get married before you are 20, and (3) don't have a child before 20. The taboo against premarital sex would generally affect people likely to break rules 2 & 3.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I take the opposite view, and would argue the verses I quoted earlier show the Bible demands obedience to the laws of state (assuming they don't contradict Christianity

That one won't fly. Ezra doesn't say anything about the nature of the King's laws, and by the way, when that was written there wasn't even any such THING as Christianity, so you can't possibly claim that's what is meant.

If you are going to treat the Bible as literal truth, you must take the words at face value: Ezra says that disobeying the King's laws is a sin... period. No qualifications. You can't have it both ways.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&amp;S

The charlatan's cult.



I never heard of it, who is the leader of this cult? Who are it's members? How did I become a member?

[Franko]

thaifoodkenny: (Official Cult Moron)
I never heard of it, who is the leader of this cult? Who are it's members? How did I become a member?

It is the Fate of all pessimistic idiots, like yourself, to become members. I think the Un-God is the leader of your Cult.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by sundog


That one won't fly. Ezra doesn't say anything about the nature of the King's laws, and by the way, when that was written there wasn't even any such THING as Christianity, so you can't possibly claim that's what is meant.

If you are going to treat the Bible as literal truth, you must take the words at face value: Ezra says that disobeying the King's laws is a sin... period. No qualifications. You can't have it both ways.

Ian, have you been treating the Bible as literal truth again?

[SFB]

J3K, Here ya go, I like the bit about slaves at the end.

From 1Peter2:


"Be subject to every human institution for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme
14
or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good.
15
For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorance of foolish people.
16
Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil, but as slaves of God.
17
Give honor to all, love the community, fear God, honor the king.
18

Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse."

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Franko


It is the Fate of all pessimistic idiots, like yourself, to become members. I think the Un-God is the leader of your Cult.

Yea, I often find myself unworshipping at an unchurch and unpraying. You do realize that you only make yourself look like an idiot when you post, don't you?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yea, I often find myself unworshipping at an unchurch and unpraying. You do realize that you only make yourself look like an idiot when you post, don't you?

Don't you realize that... aw, forget it.

Originally posted by SFB
J3K, Here ya go, I like the bit about slaves at the end.

From 1Peter2:


OK, this is more solid evidence, hilariously invalidated by the "slaves" bit. But I admit, it's a better reference than the Ezra verses.

I think this is one more thing that Paul basically pulled out of his you-know-what.

Compare and contrast a present-day evangelist who "knows" what Jesus really meant, to Paul. He was simply the first evangelist, nothing more. Unless you grant that he was given some sort of holy guidance - an article of faith for most Christians, since it validates human interpretation of God's laws - he's simply an opportunist, putting his own words in Jesus's mouth.

It's a complete mystery to me why Paul's writings are even in the Bible, save as historical records of the early church. He clearly just made a lot of crap up. What's the difference between him and any other preacher? Why do his "letters" get enshrined in the Bible, and why is he alone allowed to help define the basic tenets of Christianity?

A knowledge of the history of this exact time makes it clear why Paul was espousing such a subservient attitude.

[SFB]

Originally posted by sundog


OK, this is more solid evidence, hilariously invalidated by the "slaves" bit. But I admit, it's a better reference than the Ezra verses.

I think this is one more thing that Paul basically pulled out of his you-know-what.

Compare and contrast a present-day evangelist who "knows" what Jesus really meant, to Paul. He was simply the first evangelist, nothing more. Unless you grant that he was given some sort of holy guidance - an article of faith for most Christians, since it validates human interpretation of God's laws - he's simply an opportunist, putting his own words in Jesus's mouth.

It's a complete mystery to me why Paul's writings are even in the Bible, save as historical records of the early church. He clearly just made a lot of crap up. What's the difference between him and any other preacher? Why do his "letters" get enshrined in the Bible, and why is he alone allowed to help define the basic tenets of Christianity?

A knowledge of the history of this exact time makes it clear why Paul was espousing such a subservient attitude.

Yeah, proof to me that god does not exist lies with human nature. Don't have to look into the matter much further and don't have to deal with muscleman or the likes of him!

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by sundog
This is simply wrong. Are you under the impression that recreational drugs are a modern invention? See the thread on this very forum that shows that cannabis was used in religious ceremonies in Jesus's time. Opium was being used as early as 4,000 BC!

No, recreational drugs are not a modern invention; that's why I said they were't around at that time or location (emphasis added). Not as far as I know, anyway. Have you not already said that 'the only reason Jesus didn't toke is because he had no weed'?

The legality of the drug enters the question only if you admit that there is no other possible basis for the prohibition of its use in the Bible, otherwise its legality is immaterial to the argument.

No, I said there were two reasons for prohibition - legality and harmfulness.

To counter the Ezra argument it is only necessary to point out that there are countless "laws" in the Old Testament that not even Reform Jews follow, much less Christians, and J3K has said he is interested in the Christian outlook. No Christian sect holds the Jewish laws in the Old Testament to be valid rules for living... or rather, they pick and choose what they like and ignore the rest. :D

That's the thread-starter's Christian friends' problem, not mine. I'm not defending the Bible, remember - only attempting to answer the question about whether it forbids, explicitly or otherwise, the use of illegal drugs. If it does, but your mates ignore that bit, what right have they got to tell him not to have sex outside marriage?

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I don't see how one can assume sex is wrong simply because of diseases out there and unwanted pregnancies. I'd say that unsafe sex is stupid, but not wrong.

I tend to endorse the idea that stupidity is wrong.


Humans fly all of the time, it's been this way since before I was born and I'm 30.
Really? Damn, I need to get out more! ;)

I don't agree. I think a little bit of death is just as bad for a person as alot of death.

I'm young yet, but I feel thaat pretty much every action we take is killing us. Every step we take puts us that much closer to deaths door. So if eating fatty foods from time to time, or drinking a bit, or whatever makes you happy, then do it! but do it safely, and don't do it to excess.

You are fooling yourself, smoking MJ is still toxic and builds up all kinds of nastiness in the lungs. People usually don't smoke MJ as much as cigarette smokers smoke cigs though, so MJ attributed cancer and illness is low. And it's also hard to find the affects of people that smoke MJ only because these same people often smoke cigarettes as well.
I hear the same arguements from people who want you not to eat meat. Meat is bad for you, but it is an excelent source of protien and vitimans, it's part of why we're omnivores as far as I'm concerned.

I am also hearing more and more about the cumlative effects of minor head trauma, but still spar on a regular basis, just not too often.

Based on my own experiences, unscientific, most pot-smokers I've met have been dull individuals without ambition.

Based on my non-scientific polling methods, I'd wager you know several more people who smoke than you think you do. For instance I suspect that Thorin Lunghammer might smoke sometimes, and he's certainly not dull. :D


Oh and J3K . I just highly doubt any preacher or any church person would say smoking pot is ok.
I take it you've never heard of the Rastafarians :cool: :D

[CapelDodger]

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

(A rather tardy contribution). Leaving aside the question of whether Jesus ever said this, this is connected to the revolt led by Judas of Galilee against the census of 6CE, when the payment of taxes to the Romans was presented as usurping Yahweh's sole lordship over Judaea. Matthew's intent was to present Jesus as compliant with Roman rule and not a rebel - necessary when selling a new religion in the Roman world.

Ezar was given authority over Judaea by the Persian Cyrus the Great ( as I recall) when he allowed the exiles to return from Babylon. Not all the people who were already there accepted his authority (or his definition of Judaism), and his identification of the King's will with Yahweh's was part of that argument. Like much of the OT this was to do with a particular political situation, which is why it's so useless when trying to formulate a moral code.

Sorry for coming in late and skipping over a lot of posts in this topic, but it looks to be railroaded anyway.

To address the very first post, I would assume that the "pot isn't a sin" fellow was speaking as a Christian. I would defy him to show me a single Christian sect that says smoking pot is not a sin.

This is the difference between arguing with a lay person, and with actual church doctrine. I see a lot of people confuse the two.

The pot smoker might think that smoking pot isn't a sin, but he probably hasn't checked with his priest/preacher.

That doesn't mean God (presuming he exists) thinks smoking pot is a sin. And since the bible doesn't specifically mention pot, you are left with pure speculation.

The closest thing would be the subject of alcohol. While drinking is not discouraged in the bible, drunkenness certainly is.

I hope I have not repeated a point someone else made.

[CapelDodger]

From Luke T:
I would defy him to show me a single Christian sect that says smoking pot is not a sin.
How close is Rastafarian? From what I've gathered it incorporates some Coptic stuff. As to the Coptic position, I don't know, but they may well not be bothered about it.

[CapelDodger]

From Flaherty:
This is a case in which religious teaching intersects sensible social policy. Until the invention of reliable birth control, a society in which premarital sex was not frowned upon would generate too many single women with children
I don't think that would have been a problem for most of human history. Social groups didn't have that great a turnover, so a dead-beat dad couldn't hop a bus, and anyway much of the provision for the child would have been produced by teamwork and been communal. This seems to be the case in hunter-gatherer and simple agricultural societies, where pre-marital sex is unremarkable. The single-dad problem comes in when you have a society based on the nuclear family, which is a relatively recent phenomenon and really requires a system of private ownership.

And while modern birth-control may be more reliable, birth-control has always existed. The wise-women and medicine men know a thing or two and (like aphrodisiacs) it's always in demand.

My brain hurts.