Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Now the Bible makes scene

Bible written while high?

Heheheheheeee they shoulda just ate, drank and giggled and fell asleep instead.

Maybe we need some of that drug to read the bible.

I tried it. Only the nature of the bollocks contained with in it stand out further.

Could be why all the non-drug policies of religious based civilisations exist.

On a more serious note the title is deliberately misleading . . .

The article makes a reasonable case for what it's actually about. Moses goes off alone, find a bush, sets it on fire, cool stuff happen. Gee, I wonder.

Nah, they'd be too lazy and tired to write something that long with that much thought


also, they'd be too busy eating their chickenssss

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
On a more serious note the title is deliberately misleading . . .

The article makes a reasonable case for what it's actually about. Moses goes off alone, find a bush, sets it on fire, cool stuff happen. Gee, I wonder.

Makes perfect sense.

Leviticus was not written while high. Nobody who's trippin discusses how to treat mildew.

That must have been written the week of the great weed drought of 0050AD...

Revelation was obviously written by a dude on X or absinthe, not weed.

I'd imagine mental illness is more relevant to the origins of the bible than drugs are. Christianity, with the exception maybe of incense and wine, isn't an existential religion. South American mysticism, Asian mysticism, those things have clear connections between substance and divinity, Christianity does not.

There are some sects where usage of psychedelic drugs has been incorporated from these types of influences, but if a particular substance were of importance for Christian religious experience, I imagine it would be exalted much like the ingredients for an Ayahuasca are by native south and central americans.

We can ofcourse entertain the possibility that it is...true.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd imagine mental illness is more relevant to the origins of the bible than drugs are. Christianity, with the exception maybe of incense and wine, isn't an existential religion. South American mysticism, Asian mysticism, those things have clear connections between substance and divinity, Christianity does not.

There are some sects where usage of psychedelic drugs has been incorporated from these types of influences, but if a particular substance were of importance for Christian religious experience, I imagine it would be exalted much like the ingredients for an Ayahuasca are by native south and central americans.

Wait, existentialism is about getting yourself to an altered state of conciousness? I thought it was "the ordering a reason of all things can be known and understood" or something.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
We can ofcourse entertain the possibility that it is...true.

NO!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wait, existentialism is about getting yourself to an altered state of conciousness? I thought it was "the ordering a reason of all things can be known and understood" or something.

my understanding is that it deals with the human experience, but I'm totally not familiar with it.

I couldn't think of a better term, and "mystic" isn't really what I was going for, more like, faiths that believe divinity is attained through objects or substances rather than through action, blah, even that doesn't sound right.

Like, to reach God, one prays and speaks, but there is no necessity of a subjective "experiencing" through substances, like is seen with, in my opinion, spirituality centered around psychedelic substances.

Different faiths, but same idea: I had a Muslim friend once tell me that Mohammed said marijuana was ok in the Quran. I tried to look it up and found people debating it on the internet. The majority opinion (in a totally non-representative sample) was that it would be insulting to God to attempt to commune with him while intoxicated. Whereas spirituality that focuses on hallucinogenic experiences requires substances (or some form of deliberate mind alteration ) to reach the divine.

blah, missed the edit


Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
We can ofcourse entertain the possibility that it is...true.

Hey, so just out of curiousity, in your opinion would God have a problem with someone who was sincerely praying while intoxicated?

would it matter what substance or anything like that? degree of intoxication?

My God would.

Originally posted by inimalist
blah, missed the edit




Hey, so just out of curiousity, in your opinion would God have a problem with someone who was sincerely praying while intoxicated?

would it matter what substance or anything like that? degree of intoxication?

Why would being intoxicated matter to God if the prayer was sincere?

Indeed.

Taking that a little further, that leads to..

'Why do people still think they can petition this alleged entity with prayer?'

(When all evidence says it doesnt work anymore than literally just wishing for something whilst blowing out you birthday candles..?)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why would being intoxicated matter to God if the prayer was sincere?

I have no idea, I was only relaying what I had heard...

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Indeed.

Taking that a little further, that leads to..

'Why do people still think they can petition this alleged entity with prayer?'

(When all evidence says it doesnt work anymore than literally just wishing for something whilst blowing out you birthday candles..?)

Actually that is totally non sequitur.

While what you say may be true it doesn't really stem whatsoever from my statement.

Your point was valid, but not as an extension of what I said to Inimalist.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why would being intoxicated matter to God if the prayer was sincere? There seem to be a lot of arbitrary rules.

well i found a new plant to add to my garden...

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Now the Bible makes scene

Bible written while high?

Of course whoever wrote the Bible was high.

High on their own ego, that is.

Let us suppose, for the moment, that the Prophets were in fact, under the influence of mind altering substances, and that, the Torah, (the most profound book ever written in human history, and continues to be), is the mere product of altered state and/or imagination.

Question is, how does this make you feel? And why? And with all that man knows/understands of the Torah, why is this proposition any better -- altered state/imagination?

It seems to me, that such ideals overlook something: HISTORY.

Most Americans don't even understand the history of their own country, let alone the Prophets and the Torah. Pop-culture doesn't even understand why Israel feels threatened, next to Iran (in today's world)!

And you sit back, read a 2,000 word article on an abstract idea, and think that it's the truth (or something to be devoted to)? Something to actually engage in conversation about, as if, something can be put to rest! My gosh people, don't nick and pick; study your self approved!

Let me put it to you this way: do you honestly think, that a book will be written over this matter (and be a New York best seller)? The answer is No.

Get serious.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Pop-culture doesn't even understand why Israel feels threatened, next to Iran (in today's world)!

I think you mixed those two countries up there

Originally posted by ushomefree
Let us suppose, for the moment, that the Prophets were in fact, under the influence of mind altering substances, and that, the Torah, (the most profound book ever written in human history, and continues to be), is the mere product of altered state and/or imagination.

Question is, how does this make you feel? And why? And with all that man knows/understands of the Torah, why is this proposition any better -- altered state/imagination?

It seems to me, that such ideals overlook something: HISTORY.

Most Americans don't even understand the history of their own country, let alone the Prophets and the Torah. Pop-culture doesn't even understand why Israel feels threatened, next to Iran (in today's world)!

And you sit back, read a 2,000 word article on an abstract idea, and think that it's the truth (or something to be devoted to)? Something to actually engage in conversation about, as if, something can be put to rest! My gosh people, don't nick and pick; study your self approved!

Let me put it to you this way: do you honestly think, that a book will be written over this matter (and be a New York best seller)? The answer is No.

Get serious. and

Originally posted by ushomefree
(the most profound book ever written in human history, and continues to be)

Not to the 4 billion odd people who don't believe in its religiosity (thats 2/3rds of the global population).

Originally posted by ushomefree
It seems to me, that such ideals overlook something: HISTORY.

Something is telling me you dont really understand history...

Originally posted by ushomefree
Most Americans don't even understand the history of their own country, let alone the Prophets and the Torah. Pop-culture doesn't even understand why Israel feels threatened, next to Iran (in today's world)!

Most Americans don't even understand the history of their own country GEOGRAPHY.

"Pop-Culture" LMAO.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Get serious.

Actually, drugs have long been a part of religion. The idea isn't unfathomable, but it is kind of silly.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Let us suppose, for the moment, that the Prophets were in fact, under the influence of mind altering substances, and that, the Torah, (the most profound book ever written in human history, and continues to be), is the mere product of altered state and/or imagination.

Question is, how does this make you feel? And why? And with all that man knows/understands of the Torah, why is this proposition any better -- altered state/imagination?

It seems to me, that such ideals overlook something: HISTORY.

Most Americans don't even understand the history of their own country, let alone the Prophets and the Torah. Pop-culture doesn't even understand why Israel feels threatened, next to Iran (in today's world)!

And you sit back, read a 2,000 word article on an abstract idea, and think that it's the truth (or something to be devoted to)? Something to actually engage in conversation about, as if, something can be put to rest! My gosh people, don't nick and pick; study your self approved!

Let me put it to you this way: do you honestly think, that a book will be written over this matter (and be a New York best seller)? The answer is No.

Get serious. The DaVinci Code was a bestseller, is that our standard of deciding what is to be believed and what not?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The DaVinci Code was a bestseller, is that our standard of deciding what is to be believed and what not?

I wonder what the numbers would say if you take out all the Bible's that were bought then given away, put in hotels and the like?

Well I found this...

"In the early days, most of the Gideons were traveling salesmen who wanted to be effecitve Christian witnesses while on the road. They decided to place a Bible at the reception desk in each hotel they frequented so patrons could borrow it. The Bible also served as a silent witness in these hotels after the Gideons had checked out. Today, the Gideons place more than 45,000,000 bibles annually in prisons, hospitals, military bases and, of course, hotel rooms. "

I definitely got of course. Allow me to redirect my point, please. The point I was trying to make is that... although interesting, why should we as recipients of the article give credence to the argument? Obviously, the Prophets were fallible men; but nothing in Scripture and/or history indicates (beyond a shadow of doubt) that the Bible was written under the influence of a mind altering substances. And yet, people read so-called intuitive/"out side the box" articles and arbitrarily assume it as fact. Why? I'm not trying to start an argument; I never do, although I may come off that way; but what are your thoughts?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I definitely got of course. Allow me to redirect my point, please. The point I was trying to make is that... although interesting, why should we as recipients of the article give credence to the argument? Obviously, the Prophets were fallible men; but nothing in Scripture and/or history indicates (beyond a shadow of doubt) that the Bible was written under the influence of a mind altering substances. And yet, people read so-called intuitive/"out side the box" articles and arbitrarily assume it as fact. Why? I'm not trying to start an argument; I never do, although I may come off that way; but what are your thoughts?

Please provide your "beyond a shadow of doubt" proof that no part of the bible was written by people under the influence of drugs.

Originally posted by ushomefree
I definitely got of course. Allow me to redirect my point, please. The point I was trying to make is that... although interesting, why should we as recipients of the article give credence to the argument? Obviously, the Prophets were fallible men; but nothing in Scripture and/or history indicates (beyond a shadow of doubt) that the Bible was written under the influence of a mind altering substances. And yet, people read so-called intuitive/"out side the box" articles and arbitrarily assume it as fact. Why? I'm not trying to start an argument; I never do, although I may come off that way; but what are your thoughts? In support of the Bible they also use things like "common for that time frame" to support passages in the Bible. You can not have it one way and not the other, if you use the same logic to attack you have to also have it to defend. There are a myriad of things that are not in the Bible but defenders of the Bible try to fill in the holes with this very logic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please provide your "beyond a shadow of doubt" proof that no part of the bible was written by people under the influence of drugs.

Other way around. He said nothing in history says for certain the Bible was written while high.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Other way around. He said nothing in history says for certain the Bible was written while high.

I was disagreeing with his "beyond a shadow of doubt". That is why I quoted it. Lack of evidence is not evidence. In other words, you cannot use the fact that we have no writings about the bible and drug use as evidence for no drug use in the writing of the bible.

If I got stoned and started reading the Bible, all I'd be thinking of is, "Why am I reading the Bible."

Bible was written to control the masses, which has successfully done for more than 2000 years, and continues to do so.

When you write a book like that, while on drugs or any other way, come back to us

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Bible was written to control the masses, which has successfully done for more than 2000 years, and continues to do so.

When you write a book like that, while on drugs or any other way, come back to us

Not really, it was put together largely for that purpose but it seems to me that few (if any) of the authors had that specific intention in mind more than most writers.

wasn't Mark the one who wrote the first gospel, while Mathew and Luke pretty much copied it (using the term rather loosely) along with another gospel (Q) as a reference?

i'm no pro on the subject that's why i'm asking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not really, it was put together largely for that purpose but it seems to me that few (if any) of the authors had that specific intention in mind more than most writers.

We don't know what the original Bible looked like. Once Rome made Christianity official religion, large chunks of Bible were destroyed and new random things inserted - hence lack of flow. (or any religions book, really).

People responsible for the Bible we have now had their security and power in mind, more than anything else.
I believe Christianity, originally was a hippie religion, of then ''new age''.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
We don't know what the original Bible looked like. Once Rome made Christianity official religion, large chunks of Bible were destroyed and new random things inserted - hence lack of flow. (or any religions book, really).

I don't know of any specific examples from the Roman times, but when the King James Bible was written, lots of deliberate mistranslations were made. I can't remember what the line was originally, but it was changed to something like "you shall not suffer a witch", and was politically motivated to, at the very least, justify the religious persecution of "witches" (re: personae non gratae).

Originally posted by Sado22
wasn't Mark the one who wrote the first gospel, while Mathew and Luke pretty much copied it (using the term rather loosely) along with another gospel (Q) as a reference?

i'm no pro on the subject that's why i'm asking.

No one know who wrote the gospels, however, they were not written by their name sakes.

no offense intended, but are you sure?