Jump to content

Is Using Marijuana A Sin?


trichcycler

Recommended Posts

(only if it's spelled with an "h" I think)

 

Since this pastor/counselor/writer came out in support of cannabis legalization, I have had many people ask the question, “Is marijuana use a sin”?

 

 

The simple and easy answer for many is no it is not a sin

 

 

How can any creation of God so versatile be wrong for humans?

 

The simple and easy answer for me personally is, no it is not a sin; the same is true for many others.

 

That doesn't mean that for some it might indeed be sin.

 

The best answer however, is not from me but rather the one that is Biblically supported; after all the Bible is the home of the original Ten Commandments which are considered by most the ten absolutes of God as to what is and what is not sin.

 

Interestingly enough, Marijuana use, alcohol and tobacco use and much more often considered by the contemporary church or governments of the world as sin or illegal is not present.

 

The Apostle James who was also the earthly half-brother of Jesus described sin in this manner: “To him (or her) that knows to do good and does it not, to that person, that particular thing is sin”.

 

James knew all too well, Jesus demonstrated that people are all different with individual personalities and perceptions resulting in the need for spiritual flexibility.

 

In other words, as an epileptic knowing that cannabis use can help and even ultimately cure my epilepsy allowing me to live a more productive life is not sin.

 

In fact, for me not to attempt to use it and do everything I can to help get it legalized in order to help myself and others more easily would be sin. But once again, in knowing it helps me by using it is not a sin.

 

Sin is all too often a term Christians get hung up on and many times reserve for the judgment of others and not themselves.

 

Most theologians from Judeo/Christian circles agree that sin is basically “Anything which comes between you and God”.

 

As a Seminary trained and degreed Conservative, Baptist Theologian, competent in both the Biblical Languages of Hebrew and Koine’ Greek as well as some Chaldean and most Theological positions of Biblical study, I have seen the Bible all too often taken far out of context in order for preachers, pastors or church hierarchy to support their church position on various actions they would consider sin.

 

The Bible says many things about sin but most scripture about sin surrounds our lack of concern about how we live and treat others and less about the personal things we do to ourselves.

 

One example is from Proverbs 6:16-19, sometimes referred to as the “seven deadly sins” states:

 

There are six things the LORD hates,

seven that are detestable to him:

17 haughty eyes,

a lying tongue,

hands that shed innocent blood,

18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,

feet that are quick to rush into evil,

19 a false witness who pours out lies

and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

 

Interestingly enough, nowhere in this passage is the term sin actually used; only that God hates six of these things and detests a seventh.

 

This is not to say these things are not sin, only that it appears to be man rather than God that gets hung up on sin.

 

God can and does forgive sin so even if man commits one of these evil atrocities, God stands ready to forgive and it’s as if the offense never happened.

 

Galatians 5:19-21 says, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.”

 

It should be noted that the term used here for drunkenness is best translated as “out of control” intoxication which pertains primarily to alcohol and alcohol addiction.

 

As a Psychologist and Addiction Counselor, my experience has been that very few people using marijuana even for recreational use are actually out of control or violent. Most become mellow, tranquil, docile or even happy and silly but not actually “drunk or intoxicated”. Many marijuana users even appear more focused; one reason it is such an effective Epileptic medication.

 

It is certainly possible that the use of marijuana like money, political power, food, sexual desire, alcohol, caffeine or tobacco use can lead to sin but the use of such alone is not sin.

 

Genesis 1:29 reminds us that, God said, “I give you every seed (or herb)-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food”.

 

Certainly the Cannabis plant meets all of these criteria and many believe there is no more perfect vegetation.

 

Cannabis provides fuel, paper, medicine, hempcrete (reinforced concrete), oil, clothing, plastic and food.

 

How can any creation of God so versatile be wrong for human use?

 

Is the use of marijuana a sin?

 

The conclusion is up to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0bH6Z_OSp8#t=44

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope, but believers can no longer hide behind the pointing fingers @ sinning long hairs using "holy anointing oil" that their own god passed on the recipe for, right?

regardless of what we believe here is a story of a seemingly good man, spreading the cannabis love, and low and behold, it was successfully treating many illnesses.

It was used to connect with their professed spirit, and then they put him to death for it.

 

sounds a little like today maybe.....Try curing disease with cannabis oil and watch what happens to you in this(the) media.

 

on another note, I heard a comedian once suggest if they had the electric chair then would Christians be wearing little chairs on their necks, and hanging them on walls too? 

 (thought) if my son was put to death by a knife, I would anger at those paying tribute by wearing a knife around their necks.

I never could wrap my head around this morbid ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting question grass, but it's much more multifaceted than you seem to give it credit for.

As a student of comparative religion for thirty years, naturally I can't help but chime in.

And as a Muslim it's a question I have dealt with on a personal level, so it will be expected that the observations I make below will be more detailed concerning the idea from an Islamic standpoint.

 

You mentioned:

"...after all the Bible is the home of the original Ten Commandments which are considered by most the ten absolutes of God as to what is and what is not sin."

 

I'm not sure that the Bible is considered by most to be the best source of knowledge concerning what is and is not a sin.  While Christianity has more adherents than any other religion, its believers are a minority of the world's population, even when you add the Jews for their belief in the Old Testament.  A sizable minority, but a minority nonetheless.

Muslims also hold that the Bible is a genuine revelation, but that certain misunderstandings crept in over time; we therefore stick with the Qur'an and the Sunnah which we believe to be the last incorruptible revelation.  'Adab (can be translated as 'courtesy;' a more nuanced definition is outside the scope of this question) demands that we show respect to the Bible as a revelation of true prophets ('alayhis salaam to them all), without however taking it as a primary source for the reasons above.  We certainly agree with the Ten Commandments except for the one concerning the Sabbath.  But see below, the majority of the adherents of the JCI (Jewish-Christian-Islamic) faiths have a lot more going on than that.
 

The scripture of a faith is not necessarily the only source of information concerning it.  That idea, sola scriptura--that the revealed scripture of a religion is the only authoritative source of doctrine--is a relatively new one which was introduced by theologians of the Protestant Reformation about 500 years ago.  Most other religions, including non-Protestant Christian religions (the various Catholic confessions come to mind), have a body of traditional knowledge in addition to scriptures; and here I use the word in its original meaning: tra-ditio= that which is spoken between, i.e., what has been handed down by word of mouth, even if it is later committed to writing.  Tradition is considered to be a living documentation, if you will, of divine truth, so it is held to be an additional source for edification and the derivation of doctrine. 

 

There are also a multiplicity of interpretations within each faith, as well as the dichotomy between the religions as understood by the rank-and-file believers and as understood by the scholars and/or priesthood of a religion.  An example of this latter division is the mediaeval Christian classification of the types of theology: theology of the people is one thing, the theology of the theologians--because they have training in the finer, more philosophical aspects of the religion--is another, and the theology of the angels is even more different, since angels are said to exceed man in intelligence and purity, and therefore their understanding exceeds our own.  Like I said, that's just one example.

 

Even among the theologians or scholars of a tradition there are often a wide variety of hermeneutical principles applied.  In Judaism and al-Islam, for example, there is always a variety of scholarly opinions--and debate--on religious matters, but as a rule these different opinions are generally all considered valid. 

 

There are, of course, certain movements within religions which believe that they alone are right and all others--even their coreligionists who do not hold the same interpretations--are not only incorrect, but heretical.  From a broader religiological (as opposed to theological) perspective these movements can each be considered as one of many perspectives within the faith, even though the adherents of these movements believe otherwise. 

 

For instance, in my own faith we have the Wahhabis, whom the majority of Muslims consider to be misguided at best; while for their part the Wahhabis believe everyone else is misguided.  To give a specific doctrinal example, the Wahhabis consider music to be haram, or unlawful.  The rest of the schools of Islamic thought have a variety of opinions on the matter; al Ghazali--known as "The Proof of Islam," so highly regarded is he--opined that all of the traditions forbidding music were forgeries.  Some other scholars disagree with him, and that's their ijtihad (struggle for knowledge, essentially) for which they will be rewarded; even if their conclusions are disagreed with their opinions are still considered to be valid for those scholars and those who take their fiqh (Islamic canon law) from those scholars

 

There are exceptions; ISIS, for example, is almost universally hated and reviled both by Muslim scholars and by ordinary believers; their ideas and actions must be, and have been, condemned often and in no uncertain terms.  There is consensus (ijtima') about this, as there is also ijtima' that all terrorist actions are forbidden in all cases.  The Kharijites--to whom ISIS is frequently likened--were and are similarly considered as a group to be entirely wrong. 

 

But those lunatics are the fringe; within the mainstream a multiplicity of opinions is to be expected, and is even celebrated.  Twenty-seven years ago the Assembly of Islamic Jurisprudence (Majma' al-Fiqhi) in Mecca issued a statement whose purpose was, in their words, "...to warn and instruct both the misguiding forces and the fanatics."  I quote it at length below because it expounds upon the differences of juristic opinion between religious scholars more eloquently and authoritatively than an ignoramus like myself is able to do:

 

"...there is great divine wisdom behind their existence. These differences are a form of God’s mercy for His servants, and they serve to expand the methods by which rulings may be derived from the sacred texts.  Furthermore, these differences are a blessing and a juristic treasure, providing room for the Muslim community in its religious and legal affairs such that it is not restricted to a single opinion when faced with a particular legal issue without any alternatives.  Instead, if at any time or for any issue, the opinion of a particular imam becomes difficult for the Muslim community to follow, it is able to find relief, leniency, and ease in another opinion, according to (its own) legal evidences.  There is no difference in this regard between matters of worship, commerce, family, justice, or crime."

 

Note that divergent scholarly opinions must have evidence from traditional and written sources as well as sound training in juristic methods in order to be considered valid; we can't just arbitrarily make stuff up as we go along, but we can be flexible in applying divine revelation to the ever-changing vagaries of life on our plane.  But I digress.

 

There is also the fact that many religious adherents are somewhat less than rigorous in the application of the principles of their respective faiths, and may not consider things to be sinful which are in fact sinful (according to the specific school they claim to follow), or may regard other things as sinful when they are not in fact sins.


Its intoxicating qualities compared with alcohol:

 

Wine is not only not prohibited in the Bible, but its virtues are even extolled.  Since the "intoxication" of cannabis is qualitatively different from that produced by wine, it raises (not begs!) for Christians and Jews the question of whether its lawfulness can be established via analogy.  Some Christians and Jews, influenced no doubt by the various prohibitionist movements, opine that the "intoxication" produced by cannabis is qualitatively worse than that of wine, and should be considered a sin.  Others, aware of the fact that cannabis is probably not as harmful to the body as alcohol, and aware that the intoxication produced thereby is also not as harmful as drunkenness, may hold the opinion that it is probably not sinful.  There are some Christians who believe that the Biblical "wine," when its virtues are proclaimed, is just grape juice, and "wine" when the Bible warns about its ill effects refers to the alcoholic version.  These Christians are in the minority, but their views should be noted.  So there, I noted them.  Christians who hold this interpretation also generally believe that cannabis use is a sin, but may have a different attitude toward its medicinal use.

 

In my own faith anything which causes intoxication is unlawful (haram); not just alcohol, as many people suppose.  That which harms the body, like smoking tobacco, is also haram; in Islam your body has rights over you, including the right not to be harmed or mutilated.  There are other considerations which come into play, the first of which involves the nature of the intoxication.  The intoxication produced by cannabis is, as I have mentioned, more benign than drunkenness.  So it may be considered a form of harm reduction which, although still a sin, is not as sinful as alcohol. 

 

Its application as medicine compared with alcohol:

I use cannabis solely as medicine; I never cared for it recreationally, and were it not for its medicinal use I would not use it at all. 

Speaking of medicinal uses, alcohol certainly has medicinal applications.

Regarding alcohol's medicinal properties the Prophet (saw) said that there is much good in it, but also much harm, and the harm outweighs the good, so it is haram outright.  That being said there are still millions of Muslims who drink and go to bars or whatnot.  This is more due to their own laxity in applying their faith to their lives, as no scholar (as far as I know) within Islam has opined anything other than that alcohol is unequivocally forbidden.  The question of external application is a point of debate among the scholars; those from whom I take my fiqh say that even if I bathe in wine it will not invalidate my ritual purity (wudu; comparable to the Jewish concept of taharah).

 

Regarding marihuana's physical toll, since there is a sizable body of scientific evidence concerning its beneficial effect on the body, it is certainly not going to be haram on that count.  It does, however, intoxicate, so it is forbidden on that point, unless used as medicine.

There is the additional complication of disinformation.  If a scholar has been convinced by Reefer Madness-type propaganda that marihuana is more harmful on all counts than alcohol, he or she will conclude that it is even more haram than alcohol.  This is a false conclusion produced by a false premise, as a byproduct of the disinformation promulgated by various government, criminal, and corporate interests.  If I didn't know that, I would be of the opinion that cannabis is haram even as medicine, and many--perhaps the majority--of my coreligionists unfortunately hold that opinion.  Much education needs to happen.

 

Tl;dr version:

Those who hold the Bible to be the authoritative source for determining the sinfulness or permissibility of an action are globally a minority.

There are thousands of religions in the world, most of which are indigenous faiths (although that number is sharply decreasing with the march of modernity and "progress"), none of which are monolithic.  There are, therefore, bound to be a multiplicity of authentic answers to the question of whether the use of marihuana is or is not a sin.  The question is, however, an interesting one.

Edited by Wulf Nesthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so there are no misunderstandings- I found this article here http://www.examiner.com/article/marijuana-use-and-sinwhen I saw it on yahoo news. I did attempt to past the source but got the vid instead. sorry for any misunderstandings. I have no seminary training, I have recovered from Catholicism, but I do appreciate the parochial education I received as a young child. Maybe it was graded on a curve tough, as they could have sent me to Osbourne right. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope, but believers can no longer hide behind the pointing fingers @ sinning long hairs using "holy anointing oil" that their own god passed on the recipe for, right?

regardless of what we believe here is a story of a seemingly good man, spreading the cannabis love, and low and behold, it was successfully treating many illnesses.

It was used to connect with their professed spirit, and then they put him to death for it.

 

sounds a little like today maybe.....Try curing disease with cannabis oil and watch what happens to you in this(the) media.

 

on another note, I heard a comedian once suggest if they had the electric chair then would Christians be wearing little chairs on their necks, and hanging them on walls too? 

 (thought) if my son was put to death by a knife, I would anger at those paying tribute by wearing a knife around their necks.

I never could wrap my head around this morbid ideal.

 

I believe the cross is a very deep, elegant symbol of the Christian faith; the crucifix even more so.

 

Disclaimer before I begin: I am not a Christian, so this post does not represent my own beliefs, only my own interpretation of an aspect of the Christian religion as described by an outsider.  I am a Muslim; we believe in the virgin birth and that Jesus ('alayhis salaam) is the Word and Spirit of God (swt).  Unlike Christians, however, we believe that he ('alayhis salaam) is a great prophet, but still a creation of God (swt) and not himself divine.  We also do not believe that he (as) was killed, but ascended to Heaven where he (as) will stay until the last days, when he (as) will come again to defeat the Dajjal.  Okay, faring too far afield now.

So I begin in the name of God (swt), The Compassionate, The Merciful, and say astaghfirullah (I turn in repentance to God [swt]--a way of ontologically distancing oneself from things said, since I do not personally hold them) for the ideas I am about to present.  Since they are presented in a Christian context, I will not be using the standard orthographic representations swt (subhaana wa ta'ala) and as ('alayhis salaam) used by Muslims when speaking of God (swt) or the prophets (as) respectively.

 

The cross is found as an exceedingly ancient symbol throughout the world.  On one level the arms can be said to symbolize the axis mundi and the imago mundi, i.e., the vertical arm for the power of the divine flowing downwards, the horizontal world for the manifestation of that power within the physical world.  In this it can also be held to symbolize Jesus as both God (the vertical arm) and Man at a single point in time and space (the horizontal arm).

 

The cross also stands in for the central reason for Jesus' mission, the redemption of all humankind from sin, which he accomplished on the cross.  It can likewise be said that Jesus' incarnation and passion (in the horizontal physical plane) was also a sanctification or valorization of the whole plane of material existence by God's descent (via the vertical plane) into and experience of it.

 

The image of the crucified Jesus also represents all of humanity, exiled in this vale of tears and needing the help which can only come from God; after all to this day we speak of hardships as a "cross" which one must bear.

It is the seal of God's promise of a savior for mankind, which was fulfilled by the crucifixion and suffering of God Himself in the person of Jesus.

It is the place where Jesus reached the ultimate identification with Man.  When he said "Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani?" he was expressing mankind's condition of separation from God, the cry of despairing humankind everywhere; the final step, the climax of God's identification with Man which finished the whole deal.

 

It is also a representation of death itself, man's ultimate and inexorable foe, and a promise that it is not a finality.  Do we see not God Himself--in the person of Jesus--suffering it just as all must do someday?  It serves as a reminder that even God Himself did it, and yet still is ever living, eternal.  So shall we, through His ultimate sacrifice, also live again and be born into eternity, free of the vicissitudes of life on the time-and-space-bound earthly plane.

 

I doubt you could do the same with an electric chair.  If I were to guess, it would be that if Jesus were believed to have been executed in an electric chair, Christians would still be using the fish: another symbol which I find profound.

Edited by Wulf Nesthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Council of Nicea took place, the Emperor Constantine

- Declared the Roman Sun-day to be the Christian Sabbath.

- Adopted the traditional birthday of the Sun-god, and the twenty-fifth of December, as the birthday of Jesus;

- Borrowed the emblem of the Sun-god, the cross of light, to be the emblem of Christianity;

- And, although the statue of Jesus replaced the idol of the Sun-god, decided to incorporate all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sub-gods birthday celebrations into their own ceremonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of our Christian culture and its imagery, the cross is necessarily the instrument of the saviour god’s torture. However, because the celestial origin of crucifixion in solar myths is that the sun crosses over the celestial equator, the heavenly sign of the equinoxes, the image of a crossover in the sky would be a cross like the Greek letter Chi (X) not a Plus (+).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The evidence that Christianity was in its beginnings firmly rooted in an Egyptian-style, equinoctial mode of thinking still abounds today. The birthday of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the earliest Church in the spring of the year. But in 345, Pope Julius decreed that the birthday (nobody knew any precise date for it, suggesting again that the entire thing was pure myth) should thenceforth be held on December 25, three days after the “death” of the winter solstice and the same day on which the births of Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), and several other gods were traditionally celebrated. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 82).

 

The sun is born on the 25th of December, the birthday of Jesus Christ. The first and greatest of the labors of Jesus Christ is his victory over the serpent, the evil principle, or the devil. In his first labor Hercules strangled the serpent, as did Krishna, Bacchus, etc. his is the sun triumphing over the powers of hell and darkness; and, as he increases, he prevails, till he is crucified in the heavens, or is decussated in the form of a cross

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no sins, just human failings. You are the same person, regardless of the good or bad that you create around you. The church would love to take all that "sin" money to build more golden altars, anything that limits their chances of accumulating more wealth is a sin. If your an alcoholic, you're a sinner in their eyes, non productive people can't pay them tithe, the same can be said for sickness, when my father died of cancer, I had people actually say "well he must have had some sin in his life" my father had dedicated his life to Christianity.

Anything that draws you away from the church and leads you to understanding life, is a sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow not just one, but three off-topic trolling attempts and one on-topic.

Atheists are on a roll today.

Slip, nopony believes half of that that stronzo anymore.  Well there is the fringe, which is apparently where you got your degree.

I'm glad you read a book and I'm sorry some people said some things about your dad.  But it doesn't make anything you say relevant.

 

*edit* this isn't in reply to Habanero

Edited by Wulf Nesthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what of the Muslims that chew khat?  How can they chew khat but not drink or use marijuana?

What of them?

Had you read my post, you would know that there are a variety of opinions in matters of fiqh.

Why don't you ask those Muslims?

Do you think that no adherent of a faith ever sins?

Cliterectomy is a grave sin--there is ijtima' about this--but people claiming to be Muslims still do it.  People claiming to be Christians also do it, and I'm pretty sure it's a sin in Christianity too.

And khat is a stimulant.

Edited by Wulf Nesthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know khat is a stimulant. But it changes how you feel and sorta gets you high.

 

Don't get so defensive.  I didn't ask the question because I thought khat use is a sin.  I asked because there are very large segments of Muslims that use khat and I therefore feel they don't think it is a sin.  Was just wondering how they justify it.  If you'd rather not talk about it that's fine.  With your in depth posts I thought you would be open to such a question.  My bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...