Posted on 11/05/2014 10:01:46 PM PST by Olog-hai
The national marijuana legalization debate is moving into the backyard of a Republican-controlled Congress, now that the District of Columbia has voted to legalize growing, possessing and sharing small amounts of pot.
Voters in Oregon and Alaska also approved legalization initiatives, joining Colorado and Washington state, where pot is already legally available.
But while states out West enjoy both autonomy and distance, federal lawmakers have the power to quash any District law they don’t like. And with legalization getting a foothold on the East Coast for the first time, the District’s initiative could force Congress to make decisions affecting the future of legal pot nationwide. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
That I will not devulge. Just know that I know from whence I speak.
There is ample documentation of LSD use in moderation without negative consequence.
I rest my case.
Why did you rest at #100, and not at #101?
No problem. I wasn't trying to expose you or anything.
Just know that I know from whence I speak.
I don't 'know' that and I have reason to believe that it has more to do with the person taking it than the drug itself.
Locke was in the employ of the financial oligarchy.
It sounds good at if you don’t rigorously think everything through and if you don’t understand how the financial elites operate.
The honest and determined reader can sift through line by line and find a) things inconsistent with Scripture and b) things giving advantage to the financial elites.
I don’t have time at this point. I encourage the reader to do so; to understand the Enlightenment/financial oligarchy figures one has to study them; it’s far too much information for me to encapsulate all in one post.
I chuckled that it is on the University of Chicago’s website, one of the top Rockefeller-related universities.
There is nothing conservative about UofC, Locke or the Enlightenment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
Is FR a pro-drug site now ?
LSD incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the believer.
We’re going in circles, I don’t have any more time to argue nonsense that the Bible says LSD is fine. That is utter nonsense.
I’m not interested in LegalDrugsTrolling(tm); that’s more for a Soros-funded site.
So, like Obama, you believe that the US Constitution is “fundamentally flawed”, and are justified in ignoring the parts you disagree with.
You’ve leapt to some unwarranted conclusions, my friend. Of course FR is not a pro-illegal drug web site, nor do the biblical texts speak specifically in regard to the consumption of LSD, pro or con. They *do*, however, have something to say about young converts who, being lifted up with pride, fall into the condemnation of the devil.
You decided to bring heroin and other hallucinogens into a thread strictly regarding a plant some people are inclined receive and use properly as a gift. The incarnate Son of God has something to say to those who attach matters of conscience to what goes into the body. He also has made clear that no living flesh is self-antonymous, whether they believe it or not. Neither private nor public life is conducted uprightly if one lives under the delusion he can “do whatever he wants to himself, as long as he doesn’t hurt anyone else.”
No, Obama is a secular humanist, the Constitution is just not totalitarian enough for him.
I’m a Christian, and the Constitution is not explicitly Christian, in the future I’d like to see it explicitly Christian.
Also, unlike Obama, I have no problem with abiding by the Constitution, as long as I am not forced by the government to violate Scripture; that I can’t do.
Our governing officials, Obama AND many others, selectively prosecute criminals, etc., that is they openly refuse to do their Constitutional duties. Most of us sheeple realize that we are bound by the Constitution, even if we disagree with it.
We do have a right to spread the Gospel and promote the idea of a Christian America, including amending the Constitution to make it explicitly Christian.
Not just by the date of it, or the private writings of the founders, etc., but by the actual words in the Constitution and its amendments.
In the context of the subject of the thread, no one is proposing forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. Your complaint is not that you will have anyone else's beliefs forced upon you but that it will fail to force your beliefs upon others.
So if I won’t accept people smoking weed, I’m prideful ?
The powers and principalities, dark and evil financial elites, want the “sheeple” to partake of “getting high”. Either way, legally or illegally, they profit either way. And the result is a herd of sheeple that is high, wanting to “party”, and very willing to partake in all sorts of immorality. Much easier to enslave sheeple who are stoners. And the elites will happily start a sheeple off with just a few tokes on a joint. That’s why most billionaires are fine with the idea of legalizing drugs.
I’ve smoke pot, it made me giddy and stupid. I did things that were EVIDENCE that the Holy Spirit was NOT dwelling within me at that time.
It was not food, it did not merely relax me, it did not merely relieve pain, it wasn’t about the “taste”.
In my 30’s I drove to a friend’s house, pulled into the wrong driveway, and laughed about it for 10 minutes. Funny, right ? Of course not, it was idiotic, I could have killed myself and others driving in that condition. I’ve embarassed friends, done dangerous things, all while being all giddy. Giggles ! Nothin’ makes any sense and I’m happy - I don’t care. And I was NOT in control of my mind - THE POT WAS. I was never that way at all without it, I was a very conscientious and reliable person for an unbeliever. I was not “addicted”, it was purely recreational in certain social situations. I had a wonderful career going, I was rolling in the dough, there were no issues; it was just “good times”. I could take it or leave it, once in a while when offered, I accepted. It sometimes just went along with “going out” and having some drinks; I didn’t get “drunk drunk”, just happy, I never liked being really drunk.
So how would the Holy Spirit be inducing ME to DO such STUPID things ? How would the Holy Spirit PERMIT me to do dangerous and stupid things, and speak things that were so utterly NOT glorifying of God ?
Is drugs or alcohol more powerful than the Holy Spirit ? If I smoke weed, does the weed overcome the Holy Spirit ?
The Bible tells us it does not. Obviously, before my conversion there was no indwelling of the Holy Spirit. There was simply a person who was blessed to have a merciful and kind God protect them, an undeserving sinner, during those years of crazy stupidity.
Once I was converted, the whole idea of such things turns me off. I didn’t “rise above them” - I have zero reason to boast. I was too afraid to even commit to living according to the Bible; I never really “decided”, I was just converted, against my own desires. Nothing can overpower God; nothing can overcome the Holy Spirit.
After actually reading and studying the Bible a little, I started to find out if I rent my mind out to Satan, that means the Holy Spirit is not dwelling there. Once the Holy Spirit moves in, it controls the mind as well as the body and soul, and nothing can dislodge it. Those that are God’s, no one can pluck from his hand. If I’m getting high, in fact, I’m not converted yet, even if I profess that I am.
I hope you will think and pray on these things.
It’s not me, it’s the Bible. It’s having a civil government that is compatible with the Bible.
Remember, no forced or coerced conversions; I’ve said it a million times, over and over.
No one in a Christian nation is forced to be a Christian.
No one is forced to believe in Christ.
Moral laws of the Bible, in a Christian nation, are the basis, the starting point, for civil law.
Civil government can add it’s own laws, it just needs to stay compatible with the Bible.
The Bible is a good thing, it’s laws are good, they are God’s Word.
No, it's you. You've found enough scriptural wiggle room to indulge your chosen vises, and can dismiss any other evidence that might contradict your opinions as being of "secular humanist" origin without even looking at it. That's a sealed system, and nothing is getting in.
“Vices”: there is no Biblical prohibition of tobacco, wine or coffee or tea, express or implied. Wine is part of the Lord’s Supper.
However there are Biblical prohibitions of drunkenness.
This all can be tough to deal with at first; it was for me. I thought being a good Christian was = “he doesn’t drink” + “he doesn’t smoke” = what a great “Christian”. But I never read the Bible, go figure ! What an idiot I can be. Thank God for his revealed Word and his drawing me to it.
What does is say about hubris?
Thanks for the reply. I am glad to know that self-control is exercised in you by the grace of God in Christ; that you give due consideration to your heart and actions no matter what may enter into your body. Joy and humility are part and parcel of belonging to Him Who laid down His life to purchase and win us from sin, death, and the power of the devil.
The gist of the debate here pertains to calling things “sin” when the biblical texts are silent on the matter. Is there a biblical injunction not to feel “giddy?” No. It is the work of the Holy Spirit chiefly to testify of Christ, who is neither separate from the Holy Spirit or the Father, yet in Him there is freedom both to enjoy creation, while being a bondservant in the interest of our neighbors.
The history of ancient Israel and the Church is replete with examples where certain actions are explicitly forbidden for a time (dietary laws), and others are established forever (the Decalogue). Notice that Decalogue does not speak to what we put into our bodies. I would maintain that there is a way to make use of all of creation in faith and with thanksgiving.
Your point is well-taken where you see efforts to lead masses of people astray into lawlessness. I do not believe this is because of substances they imbibe, but because their hearts are in the wrong place to begin with, and because people over time have bound their consciences in matters where the biblical texts are silent. I would never advise partaking of MJ under conditions where one is responsible for other people’s lives, nor would I allow it to become a necessity of life. But, like everything else in creation, it can be received and used in faith with thanksgiving.
It is a mistake to confuse one’s feelings with the Holy Spirit. It is no mistake to receive and apply the Word of God as it is written and intended. My reason for refraining from use of MJ is chiefly the 4th Commandment, wherein we are commanded to honor proper earthly authority. In the event it should become legal to grow it and make use of it in the home, I would enjoy doing so on a very limited scale and in private. I would not, however, come to your home, light up, blow smoke in your face, or ridicule you for refraining from its legal use.
It may also be of help, dear brother, to consider what was delivered to the Church at the First Council of Jerusalem, where the Apostles deliberated over what rules for living should apply to those not of Jewish background or descent, namely the Gentiles: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” (Acts 20)
Got that right...cooking with it, is the way to go
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.