Can Christians Smoke Pot, Crack, Shoot Up, etc.

[ForHimAlone]

OK guys and gals,

I don't think that too many folks are going to answer yes to too many of these questions. Frankly I thought of putting each chemical in its own thread to see a better result if I polled the question.

But let me "es-plain" the question briefly (I know, with me briefly means you read for five days but I will try).

I have a friend of mine who likes to use Philippians 4.5 as a justification for "moderation" in all things, including the use of alcohol and drugs.

Philippians 4.5 "Let your moderation be made known unto all men. The Lord is at hand."

I've had many conversations with this friend over the years on this subject. DDW has already posted a poll question on whether or not it was acceptable for Christians to get drunk (not constantly!). I was not too surprised to see most respondents wanting to circle the wagons around the idea of self-imposed moderation. Xena herself specified in this thread that what was being talked about what not allowance to get sloshed to the point where someone barfs or makes a fool of themselves or acts irresponsibly by trying to drive while intoxicated, and so on.

But my friend thinks that professing Christians can smoke marijuana, crack or even shoot heroin in moderation. I guess he's hung out way too long with the folks in the Haight area of San Francisco or perhaps lived too long among Indians who had a penchant for Peyote.

Now, before everyone thinks I'm a "flower child" I personally do not advocate the use of illegal drugs and for more reasons than merely because they're illegal.

This is your brain on drugs...:yipee: any questions? Maybe in reality its more like this :duh:

Or, like this: :b_rotten:

A lot of kids still think doing drugs is :cool:

They go to places like Cancun so they can :ale:

But the smarter ones go :eek: when they see the bong passed around.

The thought of Christians advocating "Crack in moderation" makes me go :eww: and feel :sad:

So, without further ado, let's see all those "NO" votes and some explanation. My friend thinks letting the moderation be made known means not letting others see you too snockered. Whaddya think?

Blessings,
ForHimAlone

[Meh_Gerbil]

I think the Biblical maxium is in place for a couple of reasons:

1: Turning to drugs/drink in your time of need instead of Christ is a very dangerous thing to do and it ultimately leaves one weak.

2: Drugs and alcohol can leave you judgement impaired and that is a foolish way to be in a world full of whores and thieves.

3: The hard drugs kill your body - and so does abusive drinking.

4: Using drugs which are illegal would be a violation of I Peter 2.

How can we be a testimony for Jesus Christ if when times get tough we have to turn to heroin in order to make it through another week? Is the Rock of our Salvation our Lord or an ice cube floating in our whiskey?

[Crow]

A couple of things--

Civil legality aside, we shouldn't get caught up in stuff that would have a "hold" over us--I know that's not the best way to phrase it, but I'm not quite awake yet.

1 Cor 6

12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.


Christians are subject to obeying civil law--

Romans 1

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

It's not a salvatory issue by any means, but Christians should not be using illegal drugs because they are illegal and because of the effects.

[Teallaura]

Better reason: It's illegal and Scripture says obey the law.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.


And:

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.








The answer is no. If you disobey the law for those reasons, you are violating Scripture.

[A-Man]

Better reason: It's illegal and Scripture says obey the law.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.


Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.


And:

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.








The answer is no. If you disobey the law for those reasons, you are violating Scripture.

So? Maybe in America it's illegal. How does your argument work if we're in Amsterdam??

[Teallaura]

So? Maybe in America it's illegal. How does your argument work if we're in Amsterdam??Are you in Amsterdam? If not, you haven't anything to worry about. If so, see Red Crow's argument.

[A-Man]

Are you in Amsterdam? If not, you haven't anything to worry about. If so, see Red Crow's argument.

Nope. But there are Christians in Amsterdam. You're argument does not help them as many drugs are legal there. Gerbil is spot on.

[Teallaura]

So, use his argument then. My argument holds for the vast majority of nations in which drug are illegal. The exception does not prove the rule here, nor did I make an all inclusive argument. There can be more than one, ya know....

Sheesh! :brood:

[ForHimAlone]

Holy cow, I never thought about Amsterdam! That's thinkin' outside da crackabox!

I should have then said 'Can Christians do illegal drugs in USA'

Gerbil, Crow and Teallaura each made good points.

Alcohol alters the consciousness just as drugs, well, not "just" as but in some sense simiilarly.

Food can be a drug too, but I don't think the "high" is quite the same. Adrenaline can be a drug...

Let's keep the topic on pharmaceuticals.

On an aside, but pertaining to the topic generally, I've heard people talk about Christians exposing themselves to demonic activity (oppression, temptation, but not necessarily "posession" more by doing drugs. Thoughts?

I have heard the "let not your good be evil spoken of" used as an excuse for private drug use.

Porn is technically legal in America (dreadful!) but porn can be "addictive" and destructive to individual as well as corporate lives (i.e., to relationships).

I hope to include a synopsis of thoughts gathered in this thread to present to my friend. I won't include anyone's handles or anything...just the substance of the arguements themselves. I pray I can offer him some outside opinions on this matter that may be more convincing that what heretofore I have shared with him.

I don't think people that do illegal drugs are "going to hell" (a question I'm constantly asked) but I do think that the use of them weakens one's relationship and those taken over in addiction to them suffer some amount of loss.

You know...I could have asked if one thought it was alright for Christians to smoke cigarettes. I am sure most would say "no," on account of health reasons and argue that smoking is a disgusting habit, which it is, and that it is not a great witness. But we'll save this for another time. I am convinced that $ motivates the government to allow the tobacco industry to continue selling its poison to the public.

[themuzicman]

I think it's fairly easy to show that every drug you've mentioned cannot be used in moderation. You smoke pot, you get high. There is no moderation. You do crack/herioine/whatever, you get high. End of story.

Michael

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I voted 'no' but I also think the poll doesn't make sense. Please correct me if I'm in error/ignorant.

It says "illegal drugs" and then talks of prescribed medication. How do you get Crack/LSD/etc from the doctor?

Edit: did you mean using drugs for pleasure?

[Slimland]

This is a good thread!!!

Here is my take--

Everything is permissable, but not everything is profitable.

I think this is where God gave us common sense, Lets say, that a person is addicted to a drug, be it Nicotine, alchohol, food, sex, opiats etc. And then they come to Christ and accept Him as there savior. When did God save them? When they where still in there sin! Why? Because "there sins and lawless acts, I will remember no more!" Now it is time for God to deal with that person on the bassis of a new life in Him, and not the drug.

An addiction is exactly that, an addiction. It is not easy to put down, and I truly believe this is between God and the person. I say God, for God's love brings us to repentance, so through Gods love and whooing of The Holy Spirit that lives inside the new believer, The new believer will sooner or later come to the point where he will no longer want the addiction. This is where the believer ask God for the will and the grace to quit. The believer may fall, but it is Gods busness, not mans. And God is able to hold him up, and wash him clean.

Think about it, if your sins kept you from God, then you would have never been able to recieve salvation. But your SIN, is what kept you away, and that SIN was unbelief, and now that the person believes and Trust, he is now in GODS hand, so the question of this thread is good, but it is mute!!

[A-Man]

So, use his argument then. My argument holds for the vast majority of nations in which drug are illegal. The exception does not prove the rule here, nor did I make an all inclusive argument. There can be more than one, ya know....

Sheesh! :brood:

As Teal backpedels.................:wink:

[nomad]

So what about caffeine?

[Teallaura]

As Teal backpedels.................:wink:

And Analog becomes a pest.... :ahem:





(Exceptions do not prove the rule - STD's hit polygamous families, too - so nyahh! :rasberry:)

[A-Man]

And the female attempts to have the last word...................whether her argument is solid or not.....................
:hehe:

[themuzicman]

And the female attempts to have the last word...................whether her argument is solid or not.....................
:hehe:
Remember... as soon as you know you're right... apologize.

[A-Man]

Remember... as soon as you know you're right... apologize.


I'm sorry, Teal.

[GreatWhiteHype2]

So, use his argument then. My argument holds for the vast majority of nations in which drug are illegal. The exception does not prove the rule here, nor did I make an all inclusive argument. There can be more than one, ya know....

Sheesh! :brood:

Expanding your usage of those texts, Teal, it clearly shows the inconsistency when they're applied across the board (taken out of context). You've got a fragmented world with no consistent standard if national policies are the end-all, be-all no matter what the issue at hand.

Clearly our commitment to Christ by nature calls us to a higher standard than the nation-states of which we have a secondary allegiance. Therefore, anything the state asks of us that runs counter to our discipleship should be rejected. That gives us a tremendous standard on anything across the spectrum, whether it be questions of drugs or alcohol or obligations of a nation-state militarily or for taxation purposes that we must dissent from.

Thus, whether Christians live in Amsterdam or North Carolina, the same standard applies. Our bodies are a temple, and we should make decisions with substances (whether food or illegal drugs) that sustain the health of these bodies as we live our lives. Can this argument run into legalism? Of course. Is it ok to take risks sometimes for the sake of adrenaline (running with the bulls or parachuting or bungee-jumping or sports)? I think yes. But out and out participation in anything that is immediately destructive should be rejected out of hand. The use of drugs such as marijuana, heroine, crack, coke, or others is included in this position.

We can't employ Romans 13 for some things and not for others. You either rigorously apply it to apply to the ultimate sovereignty of individual nation-states over your life (and end up with a fragmented world), or you recognize Paul establishing that we are to live lives ultimately for God within the secondary sovereignties of the nations we happen to reside in. God always trumps state in issues of discipleship and decisionmaking.

[SpiritWoman]

[QUOTE=Teallaura]Better reason: It's illegal and Scripture says obey the law.

[verse="Romans 13:1-5"]Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [QUOTE=Teallaura]



Well then in this case Il'legel immigration and harboring il-legal immigrants is against the law.

So is it a sin to harbor/hire/aid il-legel immigrants or not?

So our leadership and all people who do this is sinning against our laws and the law of G_D Heh!!!!

Double edged sword. You can't pick out il-legal behavior of one kind and go against others.

Jesus violated laws. Not the Laws of Rome but Jewish laws.

It's best to say what was quoted as statements of Jesus, and back in his day I don't beleive it was practiced by the Isrealites to partake in il-legal drugs because there was no such thing as a law against drugs.

Jesus drank wine. He didn't smoke opium or partake in any ritual form of drug induced vision quests that is documented so we can obviously say that it was not a practice of the Jews or Jesus. But this is all we can say based on evidence of proof.

To say anything else is contradictive to Jesus own actions against the Jewish law and will lead to doubt in any persons mind who wishes to find it acceptable behavior.

Peace
SW

[Lizard]

I agree with the arguments that in countries where these drugs are illegal, then Christians are bound by the laws of the land, and should not use them.

I also agree with Muz (with one possible exception) that the drugs mentioned are by thier very nature, nearly impossible (if not impossible) to take in moderation. With the exception of pot, they are all either very highly addictive or have a very serious impact on your perception of reality.

I am not sure that pot is that bad. If it were legal, I am not so sure it would be a sin to use it (in moderation as it is very unhealthy when used too much, but so is cheese cake).

FWIW, I am basing this on what I have read and heard as I have never actually used any illegal substance. Pot may be a lot worse than I think. :shrug:

Now I will briefly address the last post:

Expanding your usage of those texts, Teal, it clearly shows the inconsistency when they're applied across the board (taken out of context). You've got a fragmented world with no consistent standard if national policies are the end-all, be-all no matter what the issue at hand.

I don't think that is what Teal was saying. For the Christian the end-all be-all is scripture. It is scripture that tells us that we are to obey civil authorities. But it is understood that that only applies as long as the civil laws do not contradict scripture.

The passage specifically says that we are to pay taxes to the civil authorities.

Is it inconsistent for me, a citizen and resident of the US to pay my US taxes, but not to pay Australian taxes? Should I pay taxes to the Brazillian government?

No. Scripture tells us to submit to civil authorities, and we need to be consistent in that.


Clearly our commitment to Christ by nature calls us to a higher standard than the nation-states of which we have a secondary allegiance. Therefore, anything the state asks of us that runs counter to our discipleship should be rejected. That gives us a tremendous standard on anything across the spectrum, whether it be questions of drugs or alcohol or obligations of a nation-state militarily or for taxation purposes that we must dissent from.

Agree. I see nothing that Teal said that suggest she thinks otherwise.

Thus, whether Christians live in Amsterdam or North Carolina, the same standard applies.
Not necessarily. If it is illegal in North Carolina to wear a red shirt, would a Christian in Amsterdam be bound to follow that law?

Our bodies are a temple, and we should make decisions with substances (whether food or illegal drugs) that sustain the health of these bodies as we live our lives. Can this argument run into legalism? Of course. Is it ok to take risks sometimes for the sake of adrenaline (running with the bulls or parachuting or bungee-jumping or sports)? I think yes. But out and out participation in anything that is immediately destructive should be rejected out of hand. The use of drugs such as marijuana, heroine, crack, coke, or others is included in this position.

And assuming you are correct (and with the possible exception of pot, I agree that you are), how does that negate the fact that it is ALSO important for the Christian to obey the law of the land?

We can't employ Romans 13 for some things and not for others. You either rigorously apply it to apply to the ultimate sovereignty of individual nation-states over your life (and end up with a fragmented world), or you recognize Paul establishing that we are to live lives ultimately for God within the secondary sovereignties of the nations we happen to reside in. God always trumps state in issues of discipleship and decisionmaking.[/QUOTE]

[Teallaura]

Expanding your usage of those texts, Teal, it clearly shows the inconsistency when they're applied across the board (taken out of context). You've got a fragmented world with no consistent standard if national policies are the end-all, be-all no matter what the issue at hand.

Clearly our commitment to Christ by nature calls us to a higher standard than the nation-states of which we have a secondary allegiance. Therefore, anything the state asks of us that runs counter to our discipleship should be rejected. That gives us a tremendous standard on anything across the spectrum, whether it be questions of drugs or alcohol or obligations of a nation-state militarily or for taxation purposes that we must dissent from.

Thus, whether Christians live in Amsterdam or North Carolina, the same standard applies. Our bodies are a temple, and we should make decisions with substances (whether food or illegal drugs) that sustain the health of these bodies as we live our lives. Can this argument run into legalism? Of course. Is it ok to take risks sometimes for the sake of adrenaline (running with the bulls or parachuting or bungee-jumping or sports)? I think yes. But out and out participation in anything that is immediately destructive should be rejected out of hand. The use of drugs such as marijuana, heroine, crack, coke, or others is included in this position.

We can't employ Romans 13 for some things and not for others. You either rigorously apply it to apply to the ultimate sovereignty of individual nation-states over your life (and end up with a fragmented world), or you recognize Paul establishing that we are to live lives ultimately for God within the secondary sovereignties of the nations we happen to reside in. God always trumps state in issues of discipleship and decisionmaking.Do what? Seriously, that makes zero sense. Where human law does not conflict with God's law (e.g. Daniel) Scripture is clear and consistent that Christians are to obey the authority placed over them. There's nothing inconsistent in the application to clearly illegal activities - and I never argued it was the only possible reason.

Did you read the OP? Seriously, it did not originally deal with unwise activities that were not already illegal (in virtually every nation on Earth except one really stupid one :brood:). Those came later and are addressed in other arguments.

Apology accepted, Analog.









Dang, men are really annoying lately.... :hmph: Need more Midol....:outtie:

[Rahab]

OK guys and gals,

I don't think that too many folks are going to answer yes to too many of these questions. Frankly I thought of putting each chemical in its own thread to see a better result if I polled the question.

But let me "es-plain" the question briefly (I know, with me briefly means you read for five days but I will try).

I have a friend of mine who likes to use Philippians 4.5 as a justification for "moderation" in all things, including the use of alcohol and drugs.

Philippians 4.5 "Let your moderation be made known unto all men. The Lord is at hand."

I've had many conversations with this friend over the years on this subject. DDW has already posted a poll question on whether or not it was acceptable for Christians to get drunk (not constantly!). I was not too surprised to see most respondents wanting to circle the wagons around the idea of self-imposed moderation. Xena herself specified in this thread that what was being talked about what not allowance to get sloshed to the point where someone barfs or makes a fool of themselves or acts irresponsibly by trying to drive while intoxicated, and so on.

But my friend thinks that professing Christians can smoke marijuana, crack or even shoot heroin in moderation. I guess he's hung out way too long with the folks in the Haight area of San Francisco or perhaps lived too long among Indians who had a penchant for Peyote.

Now, before everyone thinks I'm a "flower child" I personally do not advocate the use of illegal drugs and for more reasons than merely because they're illegal.

This is your brain on drugs...:yipee: any questions? Maybe in reality its more like this :duh:

Or, like this: :b_rotten:

A lot of kids still think doing drugs is :cool:

They go to places like Cancun so they can :ale:

But the smarter ones go :eek: when they see the bong passed around.

The thought of Christians advocating "Crack in moderation" makes me go :eww: and feel :sad:

So, without further ado, let's see all those "NO" votes and some explanation. My friend thinks letting the moderation be made known means not letting others see you too snockered. Whaddya think?

Blessings,
ForHimAlone Salut ForHimAlone,

I was a bit thrown off by your poll because in the midst of questions addressing recreational use, the last question focuses on therapeutic use. Which IMO, it becomes irrelevent if you are a Christian when faced with a palliative care regimen including the use of opiates and narcotics. To include also the use of hemp to treat some of the side effects caused by high toxicity chemo. So I voted for your last question.

To the exception of pot, none of the illegal substances you have mentionned have therapeutic qualities.

In general, I support the use of hemp for therapeutic purposes and I honestly do not think that your friend was reflecting on medicinal qualities when he was commenting to you on recreational drugs. Neither do I think the Bible makes that distinction when it comes to absorbing anything which may alterate the mind. IMO, the general Biblical view would be that losing control of our behavior is never good. From that generality, one could envision that any types of substances we absorb which alterates the human mind is bound to trigger the opposite of self control. And IMO (again) it does not apply to medical necessities which the authors of the Bible were far from being aware of.

I am also confused how your friend may use the Bible to justify the use "in moderation" of chemical products which (again) the authors of the Bible had no awareness of. I had thought that the main Biblical issue revolved around the abusive consumption of wine for NT contemporaries. Were there folks smoking kif or already puffing on opium pipes as one of them had got a "buzz" chewing on poppy seeds?

The only view I can see as being consistant with the general idea that loss of self control is not Biblical, is that we are not to consume substances which alterate the mind. Alcohol has various levels of alteration depending how much is consumed. But the illegal substances you have brought up operate alteration immediately and at low dosage. So, as far as I am concerned, I would disagree with your friend.

I am also cautious with the argument of "The Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit" as our culture allows for excessive fat and sugar to taint that very "Temple" we are so protective of from alcohol consumption and drugs. IOW, I do not know how many Christians in the US, while focused on not polluting that Temple with alcohol, tobacco and drugs, are healthy Christians. Christians who are not diabetics. Christians who do not have cardio vascular diseases. Christians who do not suffer of hypertension. Or morbid obesity. etc....Any type of illness resulting from our diets and lifestyle.

The Gospels gives us hints as to what is healthy both for the mind and the body as we pay attention to the foods and lifestyle Christ had. Fish for breakfast.... it beats bacon and eggs or alleged low sugar low fat cereals! The man's transportation was his feet. (except for the occasional mule). Compare that to how we treat our Temples.(moment of introspection for all of us.....).
Let me just say that our Body of Christ in general is not in the best shape to pass judgements on Christians who drink, smoke or use drugs. The standard for any of those should not be any religious morale but the simple fact that it is NOT healthy.

And as usual it is as we fix ourselves first that we can even dare to pipe up on how others need to be fixed. Thus the difficulty for your friend to resist the temptation to use the Bible to justify his usage of drugs. Because our entire Body (acknowleging some exceptions among some sectarian groups) continues to project an image of folks who indulge in unhealthy diets and lifestyles. Why would he then not apply moderation to drugs too? Does he see moderation in his fellow Christians when we gather after church in a buffet "all you can eat" and pile greasy foods on our plates?

For Him Alone, it is as we clean ourselves up FIRST that we can make sense to others.

[Losvedir]

I voted yes.

I just realized this is a "Biblical Ethics" thread, though, so unfortunately I'm kind of out luck because I can't back up my position with the Bible. That said, I'm sure I could find something (I guess as your friend did) that supports it because it's possible to make the Bible say anything if you take it out of context. Though, unless you quote the entire Bible with a helpful smattering of history it seems that anything will be out of context, and it's hard to know when things are in or out of context and largely depends on what you believe. (e.g. the slaveowners back in the day).

So, anyway....

I was going to defend my choice through just logical arguments, I guess, without using Biblical quotes. Feel free to reject it if you're a sola scriptura type (I'm Catholic).

First I guess my argument rests not on what the Bible says (because honestly I don't know everything the Bible says. I've read it all certainly, but I can't keep in mind all its prohibitions and restrictions, and which are current), but what it should say, which I suppose is pretty liberal of me, not to mention arrogant, but oh well. For instance, there's all those restrictions in Leviticus, some of which still apply (gay sex...?), some of which I can safely ignore (girls wearing pants..?), so I never know what's still applicable. I can't read the Bible myself to divine the answer because I don't know the context as well as a historian would, so I'd just be relying on what someone else says the Bible says, and I could probably find someone to support my statement that drugs are okay using Biblical quotes, so I'd be back at square one anyway.

So then, I guess my argument basically boils down to "I think Christians can do drugs because I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to (in moderation)." I don't know about the other drugs but pot doesn't really do much harm to you (no more than eating a nice big ol' cheesecake every once in a while and that's not something Christians can't do). And it's fun. I don't think the Bible explicitly outlaws fun. So as long as you're responsible about it, I don't see any reason to prohibit it.

Now, for the pesky bit about it being against the law. Should Christians be compelled to follow unjust laws? I suppose that's another topic for debate, but I don't think they should. Just like someone gave the example above about "What if it were illegal to wear a red shirt in North Carolina?" Well, I think Christians should feel just fine about wearing a red shirt there, and I can't imagine Jesus tsk-tsking you for it. And when the reasons for pot being outlawed are so stupid (e.g. "pot causes those uppity negroes to rape white women"), I don't feel compelled to follow it. I think everyone should do what they think is right.

Okay, I'm done. Feel free to be not convinced, but I voted so I figured I may as well explain my thoughts, just so you don't see the "2 votes" and wonder "what?? who voted that!"

[Teallaura]

:brood:

As it turns out, drugs are not legal in Amsterdam. The use of so-called 'soft drugs' is not prosecuted - but it is still illegal. Just as speeding is still illegal even if the cop decides not to pull you over, the lack of prosecution does not justify the breaking of the law. Ergo my argument would actually stand, even there.

Dutch law make a clear distinction between hard drugs (drugs with unacceptable risks involved) and soft drugs (drugs with limited risks). Hard drugs are illegal and sentences run up to 12 years imprisonment. Strictly speaking the sale and use of soft drugs is illegal too, but use and possession for personal use (up to 30 grams) a blind eye is turned and you will not be prosecuted. The Dutch government believe by keeping soft drugs separate from other drugs it makes it possible to control it more and therefore stop people turning to harder drugs and hopefully away from crime and addiction..

Source (http://www.amsterdamescape.com/Drugs.html)


:rasberry:







*My thanks to Bandecoot for pointing this out to me.... :smile:

[Lizard]

Now, for the pesky bit about it being against the law. Should Christians be compelled to follow unjust laws? I suppose that's another topic for debate, but I don't think they should. Just like someone gave the example above about "What if it were illegal to wear a red shirt in North Carolina?" Well, I think Christians should feel just fine about wearing a red shirt there, and I can't imagine Jesus tsk-tsking you for it. And when the reasons for pot being outlawed are so stupid (e.g. "pot causes those uppity negroes to rape white women"), I don't feel compelled to follow it. I think everyone should do what they think is right.




Just to clarify, I am the one who made the comment about the "red shirt" in NC. IMO if it were illegal to wear a red shirt in NC, I think the Chritian would be bound to obey that law (stupid as it is). A "stupid" law, does not equal an unjust law. IMO, the only laws Christians are libirty to violate are laws that contradict scripture. For example, a law that made it illegal to pray to God could be ignored without sin.

As a libertarian, I am not overly fond of making drugs illegal, at least not for adults. However, as long as the law is as it is, I am bound by scripture to follow the law. And if they every became legal, I would feel bound by scripture not to use them anyway for reasons already stated.

[Doppelsoldner]

Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The Greek word used in this verse is pahrmakia, the root for the word pharmaceuticals. I believe this particular term is used to indicate the practice of using mind-altering substances in the course of ritual magic, something widespread in many cultures and places. While someone doing bongswats isn't exactly taking a full-on shamanic spirit journey, the fact that it is an "escape" is close enough for me. There are other words that could have been used to indicate the practice of magic, so I think the drug connection here is relevant. Also :

Ephesians 5:17-19
17 Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord

The heart of the prohibition against drunkeness is not abstinence for abstinence sake, but that such excess brings dissipation. Disssipation of what? Dissipation of whatever character and faculty one posesses when one is in a sober state. A drunk does not think quickly, does not think clearly, does not think unselfishly-often, does not think at all.

The softness of the modern Christian is appalling. There is a war on, folks, a very real war where there is no spare time to be spent in a haze of self-absorption. Every hour we have should be spent preparing for the next fight, actually fighting, or recovering from a recent battle. While your friend spends his time playing with chemical stumbling blocks, a whole world of dying souls is screaming to hear the Word. What the unsaved do, I will not condemn- the Holy Spirit convicts, not the believers. But what the saved do, we have a responsibility to correct. Even if your friend is not in fact masking some hole in his heart that the Master needs to attend to ( doubtful) , he is at the least providing a witness that the lost are going to use to further weigh down the possibility of the rising hope of belief.

Tell him to get off his butt. The war is not for someone else, for some other time. It is right in front of him, right outside his door. He is breaking formation and going off on his little R&R while his own side needs all the help it can get, and the other side makes advances. If he needs pastoral help to beat this, which is likely, tell him to run, don't walk,to get it.

[ForHimAlone]

To all thus far who have contributed: Thanks ever so much for your input. I will appreciate collating and presenting the astute remarks made in this thread to my friend.

I continue to enthusiastically and thankfully read the responses offered thus far.

My apologies for blurring the premise of the poll query by the the inclusion of prescription meds as a poll choice.

I also failed to talk about the issue of therapeutic drug use - (which I imagine could fall under the prescription option) - which would leave on the table the use of marijuana to treat the symptoms of certain medical conditions.

IMO, tobacco should have been made illegal long ago in America. I commented that sales $ keeps the peddlers of this poison in business.

Comments have also taken tangents to discuss the ethics of other behaviors, such as over-eating, consumption of caffeine, and so forth.

I might have asked the question differently: If doing thus and such was legal, should Christians participate recreationally in their use? Where there is no law there is no transgression.

While not justifying the excuse-making, it is admittedly easy to see why some justify drug use when they see Christians over-indulge in everything from the buffet to prescription meds, processed sugar, and caffeine. They see others as hypocrites for chiding them for doing what they are doing while they do other things that are relativistically viewed as no better.

In a very real sense, I think upbringing (including location) plays its role in shaping whether kids (and adults) take the drugs listed in the original question, including the "soft" drug Marijuana. People who tend to grow up around those who use them may be more open to justifying why some use drugs, because of cultural exposure, or because of the influence of cultural morality. I am not suggesting here that drug use is inevitable if someone grows up in a drug-infested neighborhood, or even closer, with their own parents and relatives using drugs. This is not always the case by any means. But the temptation and availability of drugs makes their experimental use easier, if not more likely.


Anyway, I appreciate the insightful comments made thus far. Keep up the good thinking, Twebers!:wink:

[Losvedir]

As it turns out, drugs are not legal in Amsterdam. The use of so-called 'soft drugs' is not prosecuted - but it is still illegal. Just as speeding is still illegal even if the cop decides not to pull you over, the lack of prosecution does not justify the breaking of the law. Ergo my argument would actually stand, even there.

I don't know what the case is in Amsterdam, but if a law is never prosecuted, then I would say it's legal. For instance: there was just recently a law in Boston repealed that stated that any Native American in the city needed to be escorted by a police officer, or something like that. I've also heard it said that in England you can kill a Scotsman using a Longbow or something like that, but I have no idea.

In any case, a law that's not prosecuted ever shouldn't be considered a law and should be taken off the books. Otherwise people will get used to breaking it and at some time in the future, good citizens could be arrested for any such thing. (This was the case in Poland many decades ago).

[GreatWhiteHype2]

I don't know what the case is in Amsterdam, but if a law is never prosecuted, then I would say it's legal. For instance: there was just recently a law in Boston repealed that stated that any Native American in the city needed to be escorted by a police officer, or something like that. I've also heard it said that in England you can kill a Scotsman using a Longbow or something like that, but I have no idea.

In any case, a law that's not prosecuted ever shouldn't be considered a law and should be taken off the books. Otherwise people will get used to breaking it and at some time in the future, good citizens could be arrested for any such thing. (This was the case in Poland many decades ago).

Good point. And I would add (I probably shouldn't) that oral sex is banned by Virginia law, if I am correct.

The spirit of what God is calling us to carries on, though. We're free to follow God no matter where we live; if the civil laws run counter to Christ, it's a no-brainer...disobey the civil laws. But if the civil laws are idiotic and never prosecuted, instead of running through the streets with a bong or killling a Scotsman with a longbow, we continue to ask ourselves first and foremost what God expects from us. Clearly (outside of medicinal use for the terminally ill) marijuana has multiple negative consequences; and the Scotsman is loved by God and deserves to be loved by us. :smile:

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency before of a misapplication and misreading of Romans 13 that has been perpetuated for centuries. As much as Teal suggests Christians thoughtfully engage in civil disobedience when a country asks of us something that runs counter to Christ, I see little to no evidence that this happens in any practical way here in the US. Even if a Christian works with the (flawed) assumption that physical violence is still ok because the OT shows war being carried out by God, think about the implications of such a view. The civil law of the draft and duty of the citizenry to fight for their country thus becomes legal and good for the citizen (as they work with the equally flawed a priori assumption often that their country is the just party in whatever conflict is taking place). So you've got Christians fighting for their countries (often against each other), while justifying it down the line by invoking Romans 13.

I mean, come on, am I the only one who sees an inconsistency here? This twisted interpretation creates a fragmented world of ludicrous boundaries between people groups; and that's EVEN MORE IRONIC because one of the main thrusts of the letter to the Romans is that the gospel is that of reconciliation...that God doesn't see the world as Jew and Greek, slave or free, but Christ is all and is in all!

The oft-quoted Romans and Peter passages in support of civil law are important in their own right, but without a high view of the sovereignty of God and a high view of God's expectations for His people, they incrementally transmute in people's mind to the place where the physical claims their nations place on them supersede the all-inclusive claims God has on them. Is the United States or Australia or Germany or Israel the city on a hill (the light of the world), or is it the church? Pick one.