what is that bible verse...

[flower_child]

Originally Posted by DirtyPete

"And yay God said to Abraham, take this herb and with fire consume it, for it is the dankest of dank. Seriousely Abe, you gotta try this shit. I'm baked off my ass right now" - Luke 1:34

Hey dude, you think I could use that for my sig?

[DirtyPete]

Originally Posted by flower_child

Hey dude, you think I could use that for my sig?

Go for it.

[Johnny Bluntz]

[Kalect]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Ok, lets assume the Bible is correct - just for agrument's sake... In the Bible, you can tell what is meant, and what is not meant, by using the surrounding Scriptures - also known as keeping it in context.

When God says not to defile your body (or intentionally harm your body), it becomes clear that things aren't meant to be smoked - as smoking damages your lungs. So yeah... I can claim that God didn't intend for us to smoke anything when His Word says that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and not to defile them. Soooo

Yea, I know that. I know the scripture somewhat well, I had to go to christian schools most of my life.

And if you know the scripture, you know that context doesn't exist in the bible. Assuming it was correct for arguements sake in it's original form, that's assuming it was translated from aramaic properly, and then from latin properly, and that no one ever modified the bible to suit their purposes.

Alright well, even if you believe all that, the bible contradicts itself on several occasions. And not just Old to New testement, sometimes even in the same damn book.

Not only that, but books and addendums to the bible stopped being written thousands of years ago. Jesus died and they wrote revelations, then I guess God just decided to stop talking to people. If so much changed over the course of the bible, how much has changed since it was "finished"?

If that verse of the bible is to indicate it's not right to smoke because it's bad for your body, it also condems bad posture, walking without shoes, tattoos, amputation.....

You cannot read the bible as literal. It just cannot be done. I'm pretty sure that the extent of that verse would be self mutilation even if you did.

Like I said dude, I'm sorry to jump on that, I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm not trying to be getting down on just you.

I think it's silly when anyone uses any scripture to try and prove a point that has nothing to do with religion. Religion is not about wether you smoke pot or not, it's about how you treat your fellow man.

To me, this entire topic is absurd, trying to use scripture to prove pot is intended to be smoked, or trying to prove it's not intended to be smoked, wither way it's dumb.

This is not what the bible is about guys. If you choose to believe in the bible, this is somewhat disrespectful to it, and if you choose not to believe in it, who cares what it says.

(I don't nessesarily believe in the bible, but I do believe it has some good principles. Just for the record.)

[IGotTheCottons]

So I looked up the rest of those verses... The second one from the top was talking about how it's better to have a bowl full of herbs than a stalled ox and hatred therewith (paraphrase)... I looked up herbs in the Hebrew and it is translated as sickly vegetables... So the verse was talking about how it's better to have a bowl of sickly veggies (and not have hatred in your heart) than to have a stalled (or fatted) ox with hatred in your heart.

The third verse is a little unclear. I looked up herbs in the Hebrew and it translated literally to "grass". So I dunno... Take that verse how you will

Originally Posted by Kalect

Yea, I know that. I know the scripture somewhat well, I had to go to christian schools most of my life.

I've been a church goer and studier of (all) religion for close to a decade... Even went to college for it. I focused mostly on Christianity and the Bible, but I also studied the other religions as well - though not as in depth.

Originally Posted by Kalect

And if you know the scripture, you know that context doesn't exist in the bible. Assuming it was correct for arguements sake in it's original form, that's assuming it was translated from aramaic properly, and then from latin properly, and that no one ever modified the bible to suit their purposes.

Context does exist in the Bible... This is where those supposed contradictions come from - taking verses out of context. And just FYI, the Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek. There was some Aramaic, but not as much as the other two. There is no Latin in the Bible... Though Latin was one of the first languages the Bible was translated into. It was a gimmic used by the Roman Priests so they were the only ones who could understand the scriptures, and so they could hold more power over their people.

Originally Posted by Kalect

Alright well, even if you believe all that, the bible contradicts itself on several occasions. And not just Old to New testement, sometimes even in the same damn book.

The only contradictions you will find are from taking scriptures out of context. This even goes from Old to New Testaments... There are threads floating around here on the subject, if you want to debate this further.

Originally Posted by Kalect

Not only that, but books and addendums to the bible stopped being written thousands of years ago. Jesus died and they wrote revelations, then I guess God just decided to stop talking to people. If so much changed over the course of the bible, how much has changed since it was "finished"?

Nothing has changed since it was "finished", and not a whole lot has changed within the texts of the Scriptures... Some of the OT rules and rituals were done away with because they were permenantly fulfilled with Christ's death.

Originally Posted by Kalect

If that verse of the bible is to indicate it's not right to smoke because it's bad for your body, it also condems bad posture, walking without shoes, tattoos, amputation.....

It condemns intentionally defiling (sp?) your body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. I doubt having poor posture, or walking without shoes defiles your body. Amputations that are medically necessary are not intentional, and thus not included. Tattoos would be an example of defiling, as there is also an OT verse that talks about not marking your body.

Originally Posted by Kalect

You cannot read the bible as literal. It just cannot be done. I'm pretty sure that the extent of that verse would be self mutilation even if you did.

Really? If God wanted His creation to know about Him and His ways; and He wanted to leave us a guide to live by; why would He do this by leaving us a bunch of vague metaphores? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave us what He literally wants us to do, and how He literally wants us to live? I mean - if He's going to hold us accountable for our lives, how can He possibly do that if He had, indeed, left us a book of metaphores to figure out for ourselves? Makes more sense that He'd leave us a book to be taken literally.

Example: When you tell your child "Don't eat that - it's bad for you". Do you mean that the child should literally not eat "that"? Or do you think the child should try to figure out if it's really bad for them or not by eating it first?

Originally Posted by Kalect

Like I said dude, I'm sorry to jump on that, I don't mean any disrespect, and I'm not trying to be getting down on just you.

Nor do I. You'll find that I'm very easy to talk to about this stuff, and I don't get offended very easily. There are many threads with many similar debates. I always try to keep my mind open, and treat everyone with respect.

Originally Posted by Kalect

I think it's silly when anyone uses any scripture to try and prove a point that has nothing to do with religion. Religion is not about wether you smoke pot or not, it's about how you treat your fellow man.

IMO, you should substitute "Spirituality" for what you're calling religion.

Originally Posted by Kalect

To me, this entire topic is absurd, trying to use scripture to prove pot is intended to be smoked, or trying to prove it's not intended to be smoked, wither way it's dumb.

I agree - there are far more important things contained within the Bible than whether it's ok to smoke or not... But yeah... When scripture Blatantly says not to defile your body, I just can't see how else you could interpret that. Same as the example about telling a child not to eat something that's going to make them sick.

Originally Posted by Kalect

This is not what the bible is about guys. If you choose to believe in the bible, this is somewhat disrespectful to it, and if you choose not to believe in it, who cares what it says.

Kind of disrespectful in the sense that the Bible is about more than whether it's ok to smoke or not... It's more about treating your fellow man with love, and your own personal relationship with God.

Originally Posted by Kalect

(I don't nessesarily believe in the bible, but I do believe it has some good principles. Just for the record.)

I do believe in the Bible - Very firmly. I don't follow all it's rules or guidelines. But I'm human - just like everyone else. I have my faults just like everyone else has theirs.

[Kalect]

Well I'm sorry man, but I'm going to have to respectfully agree to disagree here. Your faith allows you to see things in a different way than I do. If that's what you believe, I don't disrespect you for it, I just disagree.

I just can't convince myself that a being with all the knowledge in existence would care about such petty things as tatoos, piercings, smoking, I just can't.

I wanted to clear up a couple of my points though.

When I said Aramaic, I thought that was the original language, thanks for clearing that up. But when I said Latin I ment the Bible was translated to Latin first, and then translated from Latin to other languages. And some Bibles even translated from old english to "new" english. To me thats alot of opportunity for interpretation, error, and modification.

Second, When I was saying that the Bible hasn't been changed (officially)since it's "Finish" that was my point. We don't use medical procedures that are thousands of years old. We don't use science that is thousands of years old. We don't even use languages that are that old. Alot has changed in the world since the bible was written. Why did God suddenly decide to stop having men write books for the Bible? Even if someone said they did, would we believe them? No, it would be up to men to decide if it went into the Bible. It would be up to the church. How many books WERE written that weren't included because the church didn't believe it to be God's word? How many books made it in that were just some guy saying God spoke to him?

That's what I mean when I say you can't take every word of the Bible literally. God did not pen it himself and hand it to you. You don't know the history of those words. The context of the Bible may not even represent the full context of the situation. A small inconsequential fact that the penner decided to not include may have actually been massively consequencial in God's eyes. The Bible is ment to provide an example, a guide, not a set of rails, in my opinion.

When I tell my child not to eat a rose stem, I mean because it's sharp. That means don't eat a needle or a glass shard either. It doesn't mean don't eat any plant. The literal meaning isn't the overall message.

Also, reading the Bible as literal requires huge leaps of faith. There was no world flood. Two of every animal did not get on a boat. It's not possible. There is no evidence of the mass devistation it would cause. What MAY have REALLY happened is the area of the author flooded. So bad that he thought the ENTIRE world flooded. But it didn't. It would be like if a New Orleans victim didn't realize there was a world outside New Orleans.

So yes, when I instruct a child, I expect him to take my advice and apply it to life in his own way and come to his own understanding eventually. I expect the same would be true for God.

[whitewarrior]

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself after his kind; and God saw that it was good."


"And God said, behold I have given you ever herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, in every tree in which the fruit of a tree yielding seed; for you it shall be for meat."

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Kalect

Also, reading the Bible as literal requires huge leaps of faith. There was no world flood. Two of every animal did not get on a boat. It's not possible. There is no evidence of the mass devistation it would cause. What MAY have REALLY happened is the area of the author flooded. So bad that he thought the ENTIRE world flooded. But it didn't. It would be like if a New Orleans victim didn't realize there was a world outside New Orleans.

I can definately see your points with your other statements, but the one above is just not true. There is so much evidence pointing to a global flood that it's just ridiculous that people don't believe it happened. The layering of the geologic strata, the fact that there's trees that go through multiple layers of said strata (when each layer of the strata supposedly took millions of years to form). Finding fossils of sea-animals in mountain tops. Plate tectonics, and the rapid formation of the mountains... Not to mention the satellite images, and eye-witness accounts of a huge wooden barge on top of Mt. Ararat. And that's just to name a few.

But I'll not hijack this thread any longer to discuss this stuff... There are many threads already in existance which debate many of these points... Here's a link to one you may find interesting... It actually goes pretty indepth about the flood and some other things...

http://forum.grasscity.com/spiritual...ion-wrong.html

[chronictoker]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

I can definately see your points with your other statements, but the one above is just not true. There is so much evidence pointing to a global flood....

Arguing with a fanatic is like doing pushups in quicksand.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Arguing with a fanatic is like doing pushups in quicksand.

I hope you're not calling me a fanatic... I couln't be further from one dude... Sorry if I can see the evidence that's right infront of my eyes and take it for what it is... I can give you the evidence for a flood in more detail (PM me) if you really don't think there is any.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

I hope you're not calling me a fanatic... I couln't be further from one dude... Sorry if I can see the evidence that's right infront of my eyes and take it for what it is... I can give you the evidence for a flood in more detail (PM me) if you really don't think there is any.

You state earlier in the thread that the Bible doesn't contain any contradictions. Ergo, you're a fanatic. That's cool and all; whatever floats yer boat.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by skidoo

You state earlier in the thread that the Bible doesn't contain any contradictions. Ergo, you're a fanatic. That's cool and all; whatever floats yer boat.

And you're silly and ignorant... Fanatics are people who blow up abortion clinics and shit... Just because I have a different set of beliefs than you do does not automatically classify me as a fanatic...

And just to clarify... I believe the Bible contains no LEGITIMATE contradictions... Or in silly-ignorant people terms - the apparant "contradictions" can be explained when the verses in question are put into context...

But yeah... I wanna stop hiijacking this thread... If you wanna debate this further, or if you're so confident there are contradictions, please feel free to PM me, or stop by the various threads already on the subject...

[ElectricHead]

Originally Posted by Durchii

I have yet to read the bible.. I plan to do so after The Holy Q'urran. There's also a Taoist text that it rather short sitting on my bookshelf called the 'Tao Te Ching', which I may read part of tonight.. Nah, I want to read 'The Great Shark Hunt' tonight.

The 'Tao' is pretty good. As is 'The Great Shark Hunt'. Have you read 'Songs for the Doomed'?

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

Just because I have a different set of beliefs than you do does not automatically classify me as a fanatic...

No, but if you believe the Bible is inerrant, you are a fanatic.

Which is it? 40,000 horse stalls? Or is it 4,000? You tell me. And if the scribes got that little factoid wrong, what else did they screw up?

:-)

Look, I'm not bashing the Bible. I'm just making the point (that has been made a hundred gagillion times) that the Bible is obviously flawed when it comes to specifics.

I always point out the absurdity of religious fundamentalism whenever I spot it. Sorry, it's like a tick.

If you really want to argue this, start another thread. I'm done with this one. Common sense out.