if our creator did not want swims to get high why can we?

[godzcamera]

swim was thinking about this last night. swim wonders why our creator would make our minds they way they are when introduced into a world in which certain chemicals mixed with the mind allow us to see. if the euphoric mind was not to be experianced and acceptable to our creator then why would we be built with such a capacity to get high. swim belives its a gift taken away by the ones in control.

[bloot]

Well who specified that our creator did not want SWIU to get high ?

[godzcamera]

the laws of the life currently. take away that right

[bloot]

Laws do not pull out what our creator wanted. If that was so then our ability to reach intoxication would be gone.

[Nature Boy]

I don't believe in a creator as such, certainly not a deliberate creator, as it seems a bit presumptuous to me. Dare I say it seems demanding to believe such a thing. Therefore this question doesn't fit with me. Our minds have evolved in a way that certain chemicals and plants alter our consciousness in unique ways but this probably happens to nearly every sizable creature (pardon the irony of the word) on the planet, maybe in the entire universe. It doesn't happen by accident that's for sure and if a natural law should be implied, drug use would not be illegal.

[anteriorfuture]

Christians (and basically all self proclaimed religious people who thereby dictate moral codes) will use the argument that human redemption relies on the human power of Choice between right and wrong.

[Purest]

That is assuming that altering a person's consciousness is a wrong thing to do, there are enough religions that are based around the idea of altering consciousness through various means (meditation, herbs etc) as being a good thing rather than a negative thing.
It's only social law that has made mind altering substances be seen as negative, essentially I can see why some of the older religions came about, they were a form of social control as such, giving people laws which basically said "don't act like a wild animal" however in current society many of these religious laws don't have a right place as we have changed as a species in many ways since then.

[Spelvin]

Well, there is no creator, at least not a self-aware being that deliberatly created mankind, there is no god that is. But that's not really the point since the anti-drug camp doesnt really use religion as an argument the way that the anti-gay, anti-feminist or pro-slavery folks have. There is nothing that I know of in the bible that forbids drug use, so the whole "well God put these plants here and made us to react a certain way to them" argument isnt going to win any converts.

[godzcamera]

swim was just asking a question. swim does belive in a creator=God. swim does not belive in the bible nor anything associated with it. when swim uses god or creator its completely way outside of the box of the normal presumtion of god/creator.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good expression of the parameter's SWIM is dealing within (or outside of)

[LateBloomer]

Originally Posted by Purest

That is assuming that altering a person's consciousness is a wrong thing to do, there are enough religions that are based around the idea of altering consciousness through various means (meditation, herbs etc) as being a good thing rather than a negative thing.
It's only social law that has made mind altering substances be seen as negative, essentially I can see why some of the older religions came about, they were a form of social control as such, giving people laws which basically said "don't act like a wild animal" however in current society many of these religious laws don't have a right place as we have changed as a species in many ways since then.

Yeah, with spiritualism as opposed to religion, all vices are seen as wrong and it is up to the person to renounce them whether they are alcohol and drugs or eating too much or lusting or sloth, avarice, etc.

As you remove these parts of your life, the more you tend towards true consciousness.

The ''don't act like a wild animal'' is definitely a truism. As Samael says, we are not human beings, only intellectual animals.

[Cakes]

why would we be built with such a capacity to get high.

maybe because he is that way.

or if it was a plan, maybe to give an alternative to animalistic behavior.

[TMM]

If our creator didn't want us to kill other people, why can we?

Because maybe things aren't as simple as that.

Reputation Comments on this post:

decent point

[Cakes]

it IS bad to murder.

[bloot]

Originally Posted by Cakes

it IS bad to murder.

It all depends on how you look at it though. Just because a majority of people see it that way does not mean that it is a valid statement. For some people using drugs IS bad, people lose those who loved them most, their house, their respect from others and their self-respect. The way that America views murder is that if those murdered don't live within their limits then there is a probable cause to kill.

[Cakes]

I was only using the word "murder" to apply to the killing of others that is for non-survival purposes.

[ReAlitY-HoLds-NonE]

To say murder is wrong is to commit a naturalistic fallacy, one is prescribing their own veiws as an objective fact. This is the same as saying chocolate is good, or she is beautiful. One cannot hold a diffirence between right and wrong with both an opionion and a fact, they do not comply with each other due to the nature that the majority is 'always' right, and if the individual does not conform, they are wrong. This however means that murder is wrong as a number of people frown upon it, especially compared to the few who would see it as right in any situation (?)

We are capable of doing so... therefor it is right to do so... i agree with nature boy, drugs should not be illigal, and especially as alot of christianitys writings were based on thomas aquinas's works, they should not hold anything against natural drug use. From any theological point of veiw, SWIM says that its absolute bullshit for a religion to say that drug usage is wrong or right, as any religion preaches an individual relationship with a higher power (be that power the individuals self, or a god), any statement made to be right or wrong from said religion has commited the naturalistic fallacy relative to what their theology states!

The Creator made us, the creator made the entheogens, we gain pleasure during sex? -thats 'right'... one is gaining pleasure when euphoric? -thats 'right' ...?

It is a gift removed from the higher-uppers so that they can retain their control on the unthinking majority whom are to brainwashed by religion and politics to accept even an opionion. Drug usage DOES lead to free thinking in SWIM's veiw, he has seen it across many, many people... Society doesnt thrive on free thinkers, money isnt made easily from them...

Society is not the creator of mankind, yet society removes and restricts its individualistic possibilities.. !!!

Reputation Comments on this post:

	good post
	intelligent argument.

[anteriorfuture]

Everything is the way it has to be, believe it. And if it seems hard, just don't try to get your head around it.

Reputation Comments on this post:

to relax is good advice

[Cakes]

The act of murder is wrong because it requires a victim.
Being murdered = wrong.

but to enjoy murder, or to do things to increase that good feeling, are not wrong.

Society is not the creator of mankind, yet society removes and restricts its individualistic possibilities.. !!!

i hear you, Brother, although i doubt very much that you know (can prove) what created mankind.

as to restricting our possibilties>how could we possibly quantify that overall? cause society may well have got you out of the trees and infront of that computer.

does it suck that people lock me up when they think i'm high? or if i'm colored? hell yeah. and is that behavior of their's a sign of society? i think it must be the guys who have just climbed out the tree, but have yet to make it to the savannah.

[pimpinwaffles]

everytime we are presented with a decision we are being tested... not tested actually, more like evaluated. There isnt necessarily a higher power processing these results but the evaluation is still there. Some minds are gifted enough to register their own evaluations without the aid of (insert positive synonym for drugs here). For others (such as SWIM) the drugs are required for the self revelation. Decisions (moral and legal) shouldnt be made with the hope of impressing a higher power because it renders those decisions useless. If you do something because you think somebody will think well of you then you havent actually decided to do it, they made your decision for you through subtle implication. Just because drugs affects people doesnt mean that the intent of drugs was to intoxicate, moreso they are present simple as a means to an end.

[TMM]

Originally Posted by pimpinwaffles

everytime we are presented with a decision we are being tested... not tested actually, more like evaluated. There isnt necessarily a higher power processing these results but the evaluation is still there.

Tested is pretty much a synonym for evaluated. I don't see what you're trying to say here. If there is an evaluation then there must be something doing the evaluation. Evaluation/testing does not spring up out of nowhere. There must be a subject. Maybe you're saying that these decisions are being evaluated by our collective notion of what is morally correct, but in that case the only way that they can be "correct" is if they are conformist. The only reason anyone thinks a moral decision is correct is because it conforms with what society says is correct.

I used the 'murder' example because I wanted to illustrate the flaws in the OP's argument that if there is a God and he wouldn't want us to do something, why would he allow us to? Apologies if it caused any confusion.

[Also, I'm rather drunk, so apologies if this post makes no sense...]

[Cakes]

If you do something because you think somebody will think well of you then you havent actually decided to do it, they made your decision for you through subtle implication.

If SWIM is bullied uncontrollably into using breath freshener so Grandma won't smell the ciggies, then it is not a decision he is making, it is simply the tides at work. but if SWIM decides to consider the wishes of others, then he IS making a choice, even though it may not be the choice he originally thought he was making.

[anteriorfuture]

...is that question really relevant anyway? It's asserting away things no one will ever know.

[Cakes]

What won't i know? and who told you?

[anteriorfuture]

I mean, most people on here don't think "our creator did not want swims to get high". Or do they?

[ReAlitY-HoLds-NonE]

SWIM thinks that the cause of all things, and all things communicate with him while under psychadelic influence... so SWIM also beleives that the creator did want him, and maybe others to get high, if one gains spiritual experiences, then one COULD say that the creator wants them to get high, if not, and they 'just' get euphoric... then, well, its not the way the creator wanted them to work... well, SWIM's personal veiw works this way...