Faith Leaders Wrestle Over Growing Support for Marijuana

Christian Headlines ^ | February 04, 2014 | Sarah Pulliam Bailey

[xzins]

Most Christians are still reluctant to favor legalization, Rodriguez said, since the effects of marijuana aren’t much different from getting drunk, which is a biblical no-no.

“It has the ability of diluting reason, behavior, putting your guard down,” he said. “We are temples of God’s Holy Spirit, and it has the ability of hindering a clear thought process.”

[chris37]

I really don’t think anyone in this country has a clear thought process anymore, sober or not sober.

[RginTN]

Alot of Christians divorce that doesn’t make it an action pastors should condone.

Sad that modern heathen culture finds acceptance among pastors even Christians. We are supposed to be in the world not embracing the world.

[Ken H]

To my knowledge, there was no prohibition against drugs and alcohol in either the NT or OT. Nor was there any suggestion that there should be. It was a known problem. Indeed, the Bible admonishes against it.

So how are secular prohibition laws justified on a scriptural basis?

[xzins]

I think those who are not sober definitely do not have a clear thought process.

The ability of a sober-minded person varies, of course, based on illness, mental capacity, etc.

[xzins]

Intoxication is always presented negatively in the bible

[R. Scott]

I have to wonder ─ in States that have legalized marijuana will prisoners serving time for possession be freed?

[Ken H]

Intoxication is always presented negatively in the bible

Exactly. Yet there was no legal prohibition, and nowhere does the Bible advocate for it. So how does scripture justify prohibition of drugs or alcohol under secular law?

[xzins]

Good question. It would seem to make sense. But law in the US doesn’t make sense....

[xzins]

Romans 13 and the invention of the automobile.

[Ken H]

Romans 13 and the invention of the automobile.

You lost me. Explain how the above justifies legal prohibition.

[xzins]

It justifies legal control...a controlled substance.

Same with marijuana, actually.

[Ken H]

It justifies legal control...a controlled substance.

How so? It says nothing about what secular law should be regarding prohibition. The sanctions described in Romans 13 come from God, not man.

[xzins]

Romans 13 says that good rulers make good laws for the good of society and that they should be obeyed.

I don’t know anyone arguing that we drop DUI because it’s got no basis in reality.

[Durus]

"Romans 13 says that good rulers make good laws for the good of society and that they should be obeyed".

We are a nation born out of rebellion to god then right? I think you are missing the context of "Romans".

[dirtboy]

Using your logic here, we should issue an all-out ban on texting anywhere because some people text while driving.

Make the prohibitions specific to a combination of activities such as driving drunk or high. Someone at home drinking or smoking pot does not pose a danger to the travelling public.

[xzins]

The exact opposite, actually. The argument about good leaders making good laws was the basis for the rebellion: the declaration of independence included that long list of usurpation which were BAD laws from BAD rulers.

[xzins]

I don’t see that being my logic at all.

I see governments deciding that texting is dangerous based on statistics and then passing laws attaching penalties for doing so.

That seems a perfectly reasonable law to me given the extreme danger and enormous number of miles driven per year.

If a state chooses such a law, then it seems to me that such a law is within their charter.

[Ken H]

Romans 13 says that good rulers make good laws for the good of society and that they should be obeyed.

The Founders were certainly good rulers who made good laws for the good of society. The fact that there was no prohibition at the time and no advocacy for such is a major flaw in your position.

I don’t know anyone arguing that we drop DUI because it’s got no basis in reality.

Me neither.