Is cannabis use a sin?

[cannabineer]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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

 

[cannabineer]

...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]

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.

"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]

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]

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]

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]

In my Universe its a sin to NOT use cannabis

 

[eye exaggerate]

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]

"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)

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]

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]

Here is what I reckon..!

 

[Zaehet Strife]

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]

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.

...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]

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.