Posted on 09/05/2006 8:16:10 AM PDT by tang0r
Generally, there are two types of marijuana users. First is the most commonly stereotyped stoner, depicted in the media of movies (e.g. Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and television (e.g. Shaggy from Scooby Doo). These are the dead-end job, ambitionless abusers who ingest marijuana to escape their already dismal lives. They represent the image which is most often associated with marijuana use. Certainly, the average American high school is teeming with similar directionless pot-smoking losers, further cementing this public perception.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
You may think that the exchange starting at Mark 7:5 is talking about food until you come to:
Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
This is pretty clear. Note the use of the word "nothing". Note also, by Jesus' clarity about what does defile a man, if that from outside entering into the man kills him, he is still not defiled.
If what Mark records Jesus as saying is true, your entire position regarding cannabis, its effects and Biblical prohibition thereof is false.
Yes I know this event is in more than just this gospel, and the exact thing said a bit different. And the "belly" is used and "the draft" also. Jesus' own words make this merely one of a set.
The lesson is consistent. What defiles the man are the terrible words and deeds that he deliberately does.
Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Mark 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Subsequent courts have cited that phrase to mean that Congress may intervene when other states ARE affected.
Did any pre-FDR courts commit that logical fallacy?
What is this? Twenty questions? I addressed your statement and exposed it for the lame personal attack that it was.
What is this? Twenty questions?
Apparently it's dodge-the-question ... and you're well practiced.
I addressed your statement and exposed it for the lame personal attack that it was.
It was a statement of fact, backed by evidence like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.