Opinions - How influential is the Church?

[Bikelbees]

I was wondering how much the prohibitionists are controlled / influenced / funded by the church when I came across this article about how weak Amnesty is on human rights which are not currently specified to be actual recognised rights claims. Sorry to be lazy but:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/3874/

[FuBai]

Mixing religion and the war on drugs is a major problem - not least because those very self-same prohibitionists don't seem to bother to read the texts that they are espousing as being the one and only truth. I remeber watching a debate on youtube where the prohibitionist said '...Well I don't know about that, all I know is I'm a christian and Jesus didn't light up a doogie (whatever the hell that is) at the last supper.' Sure the J-man might not of done but it looks like most of the patriarchs were stoners; as I posted in another thread:

Originally Posted by FuBai

The word cannabis has it's etymological roots in Hebrew, qaneh (kaneh) bosm (or in it's non-plural rendering 'kaneh bis'). This was first solidly established in 1936 by the Polish Etymologist Sula Benetfrom the Institute of Anthropological Sciences in Warsaw. Qaneh Bosm is mentioned several times in the bible but, perhaps most significantly, it is mentioned in Exodus 30:23 as a central ingredient of the Sacred Anointing perfume. The word was mistranslated and, overtime, western scribes claimed that it meant Sweet Calamus, probably because they had no knowledge of Cannabis' extistance. In 1980 the Hebrew Institute of Jerusalem confirmed her claim that "kaneh bosm" is indeed cannabis.

As you can see, the recipe calls for a hefty amount of cannabis to be converted into oil which, even when applied topicaly, would probably have had a very strong intoxicating effect. Certainly it is thought that the Scythians just north of the region used cannabis by throwing it onto fires and inhaling the smoke - there is some debate as to whether this was the 'burning bush' Moses spoke to.

More than that the New Testament has this to say on the subject of prohibition:

Originally Posted by Timothy 4:1-6

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereupon thou hast attained.

Originally Posted by Matt. 15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

At least Muslims have a leg to stand on when it comes to religiously enforced prohibition:

Originally Posted by Sura 2:219

They ask you [Prophet] about intoxicants and gambling: say, "There is great sin in both, and some benefit for people: the sin is greater than the benefit." They ask you what they should give: say, "Give what you can spare."

Originally Posted by Sura 4:43

You who believe, do not come anywhere near the prayer if you are intoxicated, until you know what you are saying . . .

I would say that in Muslim nations prohibition does have alot to do with religious belief. For Christians it's completely goundless.

[Nagognog2]

Hitler had the churches in Germany re-organized to echo the party line. Same is happening/happened here in the USA. All you need to do in the USA is watch the 700 Club on TV. It's all a tool of the neo-con facsists. If not in the USA - Google 700 Club - you'll see Hitler is alive and well.

[Woodman]

I say, nevermind the church & the abortion issue.

Re: religious experience on drugs:

I truely believe that some drugs provide a gateway to spiritual enlightenment; you just have to know what you are getting into before you take them.

It is VERY important to purify yourself so that you are prepared for the journey, otherwise you'll have a bad trip.

The church is probably just affraid of what you might discover.

---sorry [off-topic brainfart]

[Alicia]

Id say the church is very influential on some families who take it to the extreme sense using there actions and the church as cover for there behavior. It carries on through the families who still bring them up to this bullshit behavior.

[AntiAimer]

Smurf would say, religion as a whole is VERY VERY influential. No matter what you believe, you just can't get away from the cults.


'In god we trust'

[stoneinfocus]

What I realized, just when everyone seemed to have accepted the status quo and society begins to be easy going, and thus ideally forgetting about religion, but nonetheless acting to the highest values:love, easy going and being lucky, they(state andreligious leaders) come up with some made-up problems to destroying this lifestyle, making them believe in fear and anger/authority again.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Nag

Hitler had the churches in Germany re-organized to echo the party line. Same is happening/happened here in the USA. All you need to do in the USA is watch the 700 Club on TV. It's all a tool of the neo-con facsists. If not in the USA - Google 700 Club - you'll see Hitler is alive and well.

Same has happened with the communists, at least in Romania (I don't know how it was in Russia, China, Cuba, etc.). First, all church leaders were invited to cooperate with the 'Security' and report content of confessions. Then, internal religious publications were censored by the government. I once had my hands on an old article about a church representative's trip to his brethren in Moscow - the first paragraph was the longest and described how amazingly wonderful the Soviet Capital was, how nice the train was, how clean the streets were, how modern the hotel was, what cool buildings he saw, etc. The Romanian Orthodox Church (major) cooperated and was tolerated (of course, the content of liturgies was still controlled, etc.). Smaller churches ('sects') who usually didn't want to cooperate were persecuted without mercy.

Religion gets dangerous when it is (ab)used to force one's will on others. Like when leaders use it to justify a 'crusade against terror/the Great Satan' or when politicians state that they feel themselves responsible only to God. Religion is not dangerous unless it is forced on somebody. I personally am most disgusted with the way many atheists are treated in a mostly Christian environment.

[bcubed]

Sigh...

Strike 1: "Woman's right to choose," as quoted in this article, is the most ideologically charged way to say "abortion rights."

Strike 2: "The right to choose is about a woman having control over her own body and personhood." Any quasi-competent geneticist could tell you the italicised text is factually incorrect.

Thus, while the site mentoined by link may well be valuable, it has quickly demonstrated a desire to play "fast and loose" with the facts, and I'd be hesitant to rely on what they said without meticulous verification.

This is relevant to the drug debate because how many times have I heard, "Alcohol kills [big number]. Tobacco kills [bigger number]. Cannabis kills NOBODY!" Um...really? Alcohol crash statistics are based on (fatal accident)+(measurable BAC), NOT on "proximate causation." Thus, saying zero cannabis deaths means cannabis use somehow miraculously makes it impossible to be involed in a traffic fatality! When those opposed to the WOD use such tactics, it causes undecideds to doubt everything else we say. We can't match the resoucres of the pro-WOD types, so we must make sure our facts are true beyond reproach.

(Oh, and for the record, I'm opposed to gov't criminalizing abortions in most cases).

[Bikelbees]

Originally Posted by bcubed

Sigh...

Strike 1: "Woman's right to choose," as quoted in this article, is the most ideologically charged way to say "abortion rights."

Strike 2: "The right to choose is about a woman having control over her own body and personhood." Any quasi-competent geneticist could tell you the italicised text is factually incorrect.

Thus, while the site mentoined by link may well be valuable, it has quickly demonstrated a desire to play "fast and loose" with the facts, and I'd be hesitant to rely on what they said without meticulous verification.

This is relevant to the drug debate because how many times have I heard, "Alcohol kills [big number]. Tobacco kills [bigger number]. Cannabis kills NOBODY!" Um...really? Alcohol crash statistics are based on (fatal accident)+(measurable BAC), NOT on "proximate causation." Thus, saying zero cannabis deaths means cannabis use somehow miraculously makes it impossible to be involed in a traffic fatality! When those opposed to the WOD use such tactics, it causes undecideds to doubt everything else we say. We can't match the resoucres of the pro-WOD types, so we must make sure our facts are true beyond reproach.

(Oh, and for the record, I'm opposed to gov't criminalizing abortions in most cases).

I don't think that the article shrinks from the notion of abortion rights at all by referring to the woman's right to choose, nor that it is a highly charged issue for many. I did not consider that it had anything to with drugs in the way you mentioned. I do not understand what light the quasi?-qualified geneticist could shed on this, no-one is suggesting that a foetus is not genetically linked to its parents. The point is that a foetus cannot exercise rights and if it is afforded any special protection it does entirely undermine the notion of true adult rights. I consider it relevant to the drugs debate not because of anything to do with fatalities, but because unless we can articulate our rights precisely, we allow organisations to run fast and loose with our rights.

[manda]

I am really glad I have a deep faith in God, Jesus, and Mary, the power of prayer, and Christ's teachings.
I feel that people should believe what feels right for them, not let how the church stands on an issue affect their stance. I don't feel you need to physically go to church weekly to prove your faith-
When I talk to God wherever I am is my church. I walk outdoors, and see the beauty, or look at the beautiful animals on earth with us, and I think that there must be more than nothingness after death...

[Bikelbees]

Originally Posted by Woodman

I say, nevermind the church & the abortion issue.

Re: religious experience on drugs:

I truely believe that some drugs provide a gateway to spiritual enlightenment; you just have to know what you are getting into before you take them.

It is VERY important to purify yourself so that you are prepared for the journey, otherwise you'll have a bad trip.

The church is probably just affraid of what you might discover.

---sorry [off-topic brainfart]

That latter sentiment may well be true, but I say this article is relevant because the liberalisation of drugs debate is simply a question of rights - if a foetus trumps the rights of an autonomous adult, then we might as well forget about all liberty.

[Allalong]

Swim has actually run into more than a few catholic priests, particularly those with experience with the prison system who are all for decriminilisation, due to the belief that addicts and those that just make some poor choices shouldn't be punished unfairly for it.

[bcubed]

1. The genetic code of a fetus is unique form all other cells in a woman's body and is further incapable of being derived from her genome alone. Whether it's a "seperate human life" or a "seperate lump of jelly," one thing it factually CANNOT be is part of the woman's body.

2. Knowing 1, site goes ahead and uses "woman's own body" anyway.

3. Knowing 2, I see site has placed ideology ahead of fact and that I should consider that in anything else said site has to say.

This is the same logical pathway an undecided about the WOD will use when s/he hears "pot has never, ever, killed anyone!" S/he'll sense that ideology is put ahead of fact and discredit anything else s/he hears.

IMO, site would be more effective if it resisted ideological shortcuts.

IMO, WOD opponents would be more effective if they resisted ideological shortcuts.

[Bikelbees]

Originally Posted by bcubed

1. The genetic code of a fetus is unique form all other cells in a woman's body and is further incapable of being derived from her genome alone. Whether it's a "seperate human life" or a "seperate lump of jelly," one thing it factually CANNOT be is part of the woman's body.

2. Knowing 1, site goes ahead and uses "woman's own body" anyway.

3. Knowing 2, I see site has placed ideology ahead of fact and that I should consider that in anything else said site has to say.

This is the same logical pathway an undecided about the WOD will use when s/he hears "pot has never, ever, killed anyone!" S/he'll sense that ideology is put ahead of fact and discredit anything else s/he hears.

IMO, site would be more effective if it resisted ideological shortcuts.

IMO, WOD opponents would be more effective if they resisted ideological shortcuts.

I see what you are saying, but to me it just seems pedantic - if its connected and dependent to/on the body, what is the essential difference? What is important is that the woman's right over her own body refers to whether or not she carries and feeds the embryo/fetus. Clearly the pregnancy has profound consequences on the woman both before and after birth, and forcing an unwanted pregnancy does absolutely end the woman's control over her own body and mind. If its unwanted,or becomes unwanted, then effectively the fetus becomes a parasite occupying a part of the body - if the embryo's unique genetic code is supposed to confer it with rights then I don't accept that. A fertilised egg or fetus cannot compete with an autonomous adult in terms of priority of interests because of a genetic claim to human rights - the claim to rights is vested in being a participating member of society, a politically derived form of defining one's relative freedom encapsulated as social contract.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good points, well stated

[dr ACE]

of course the church is influential or the Christian cults in general. Gorge bush is a christian of some kind or another and he has great influence over the 'drug prohibition',not that he could end it tomorrow if he wanted. but he sure is fuleing the ignorance surrounding the drug culture in general. Religion has influenced politics and society for thousands of years this will not change for a long time anyway.

on a side not this mythical Jesus figure was married/had intimate relationship to Mary Magdalene,there are obvious parts of the new testament which have been edited to hide this--st John 19:25-27 the disciple he loved was MM who else could it have been his mother?,there is no mention of John in this chapter.

And if you read the chapters about how MM was supposedly possessed with devils its obviously another edit at a latter date,because in each instance little is said about it,also it is talked about it in the past tense,but there is no record of this event in any previous books in the new testament!!. Obviously the bible is full of mistakes,just an issue that gets to swim the bible has a sexist view of women in positions of authority regarding spiritual matters.anywonder why the pope is a man LMFAO

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by dr ACE

of course the church is influential or the Christian cults in general. Gorge bush is a christian of some kind or another and he has great influence over the 'drug prohibition',not that he could end it tomorrow if he wanted. but he sure is fuleing the ignorance surrounding the drug culture in general. Religion has influenced politics and society for thousands of years this will not change for a long time anyway.

on a side not this mythical Jesus figure was married/had intimate relationship to Mary Magdalene,there are obvious parts of the new testament which have been edited to hide this--st John 19:25-27 the disciple he loved was MM who else could it have been his mother?,there is no mention of John in this chapter.

And if you read the chapters about how MM was supposedly possessed with devils its obviously another edit at a latter date,because in each instance little is said about it,also it is talked about it in the past tense,but there is no record of this event in any previous books in the new testament!!. Obviously the bible is full of mistakes,just an issue that gets to swim the bible has a sexist view of women in positions of authority regarding spiritual matters.anywonder why the pope is a man LMFAO

To be honest all you have done is point out a tree in a forest.

[dr ACE]

what do you mean FuBai?,read the book for your self and study the verses about MM and you will see what i mean.most of the new testament is fabricated lies and that is the truth.

i don't think that the majority of people realize/want to accept just how fabricated the bible is.what i posted about MM might seem more obvious because of the davici code and holy blood holy grail type books. But most people think these 'theories' are an attempt to put down the christian cults ie-catholic,protestant ect, but the mistakes are there clear to be read in the bible itself all you have to do is have your eyes open when you read it

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by dr ACE

what do you mean FuBai?,read the book for your self and study the verses about MM and you will see what i mean

1) I have an A level in Old Testament Studies

2) I was saying that you picking out one flaw/lie/offence to reason in the bible is like remarking on a piece of shit in a sewage facility - it's jam packed with crap so why bother pointing out a single turd?

[dr ACE]

because that 1 single piece of 'turd' is crucial in understanding who the Real Jesus was he was a mortal man who had a relationship with a mortal women and that is something most Christians have a problem with. The apocryphal and other 'hidden' scriptures is more evidence to support this,just my 2pence, i am not a religious historian it just interests me how people can allow them selves' to be soooo deceived

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by dr ACE

because that 1 single piece of 'turd' is crucial in understanding who the Real Jesus was he was a mortal man who had a relationship with a mortal women and that is something most Christians have a problem with. The apocryphal and other 'hidden' scriptures is more evidence to support this,just my 2pence, i am not a religious historian it just interests me how people can allow them selves' to be soooo deceived

Yes but there are so many of these glaring errors, to name but a few;

1) Direct Contradictions

2) Extreme and hideous violence (divinely perpetrated) -Jeremiah 19:7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
19:8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.
19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
^ that's just one of the many, many violent and dark images.

3) Patently idiotic concepts - Noah's Ark, The Plagues of Egypt, the Fall of Jericho - the list doesn't end.

4) It's a book of supposed "Non-fiction" which claims, as its central tenet, that an invisible, omni-present, conscious force created the universe and gives a damn about whether it is worshipped or not

5) Omnipotent is a logical contradiction

6) Omniscience invalidates any idea of free will, so God is punishing people for things they didn't have any choice over (note my sig)

7) Sexual deviancy - Genesis 19:4-8

the list just keeps going and going and going - so, who cares if Jesus had a wife? It's as unimportant as the rest of the dross that we have to sift through to find any fraction of reality in the Bible. Why is that lie any more fundamental than all the others? surely the contradictions in free will and the caprice and violence of God are far more important? Hell, most people don't know that the Old Testament was written at four distinct times with different traditions, and that the result is a malaise of contradiction, shifting perspective and style

[solartrinity]

Originally Posted by manda

I am really glad I have a deep faith in God, Jesus, and Mary, the power of prayer, and Christ's teachings.
I feel that people should believe what feels right for them, not let how the church stands on an issue affect their stance. I don't feel you need to physically go to church weekly to prove your faith-
When I talk to God wherever I am is my church. I walk outdoors, and see the beauty, or look at the beautiful animals on earth with us, and I think that there must be more than nothingness after death...

I read your post and i think it was great to hear someone express thier beliefs and be happy to accept that others have thier own, I think everyone feels part of a bigger energy or whole I find god in everything that exists, in me and the world and all the people around me and that I am also part of god and part of of everyone and the world around me. I was brought up christian but decided it wasnt really me and i have found peace in myself and god in a different way to you but agree with you so much as well. People use religion as a reason to fight and have wars and it is so wrong how does anyone have the right to force thier views and belief system onto others they are taking something spiritual and turning it into a way of control. I think its great everyone has thier own beliefs and even though i dont like some of thier ideas I like the fact we can live on the planet accepting we are all different. It will never be all peace love and unity ever but it shows that we can accept and respect we are individual and at peace with ourselves when we dont have to fight for our beliefs because others accept us for who we are.

Wicked post

[dr ACE]

Originally Posted by FuBai

1) I have an A level in Old Testament Studies

2) I was saying that you picking out one flaw/lie/offence to reason in the bible is like remarking on a piece of shit in a sewage facility - it's jam packed with crap so why bother pointing out a single turd?

you have an A level in old testement good for you fubia, A level in bullshit,as you put it,LOL

try reading the 'moses legacy;graham philips. i think you would find it interesting

;

http://www.grahamphillips.net/Books/Moses.htm

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by dr ACE

you have an A level in old testement good for you fubia, A level in bullshit,as you put it,LOL

Yes, it is an A level in, as you said, rubbish. The problem is that it's important rubbish because so many people believe in it. A good understanding of the Bible allows you to accurately discredit it, but it is also useful in understanding how people thought at the time it was written and how and where people are coming from today.

[Panthers007]

As one Vietnam Vet - whom I disagreed with constanstly - stated: "If it wasn't for religion, some people would have no morality at all."

I had to conclude he was right.