PDA

View Full Version : Drug Dealing and the Bible



Pages : [1] 2 3

Nazaroo
August 29th, 2009, 08:08 AM
By the way DRUG DEALING is in fact mentioned specifically in the New Testament and condemned, in the original Greek.

We had a long thread on this only a year or two ago.

It can be found here:

Pharmakeia: Drug-Dealing in the New Testament (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2378855&highlight=pharmakeia+drug+dealing)


We suggest anyone interested in what the New Testament really says about drugs and drug dealers should go here.

Here is a quotation from that thread:


------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Dealers In the Bible? Where?

Drug dealing is treated gravely and severely condemned in the New Testament: 5 times.

(Gal.5:20, Rev.9:21, 18:23, 21:8, 22:15, original Greek)

Paul Spoke out against Drug Dealing:
Gal 5:20 "Now the works of the flesh are OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, uncleanness, ... DRUG DEALING ( pharmakeia )...and things like these I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THEM WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"
John also Speaks out against Drugs:
Rev. 9:21 "Nor did they even repent of their murders or their DRUG DEALING (ton pharmakon) or their sexual immorality or their robbery."

Rev 22:15 "OUTSIDE (heaven) are the dogs and the DRUG DEALERS (hoi pharmakoi), and everyone who practises falsehood."

Rev 18:23 Babylon the Great City has fallen...All nations were deceived by your DRUG DEALING (en te pharmakeia)"

Rev 21:8 "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"


Why Should we translate 'pharmakoi' as Drug Dealers?

The Greek word ‘pharmakeia’ has been used since 500 years before Jesus’ time to refer to the buying and selling of drugs for both recreational and medical purposes, and also to refer to quacks selling ‘miracle cures’ etc. This is the very word we get our modern English word ‘Pharmacy’ from, to refer to a dealer or supplier of drugs, a drug store.

Why isn't this in my English Translation?

It has been known since ancient times that the word means ‘drug dealing’. Abundant references in Classical literature show this beyond dispute. In English bibles the term ‘drug dealing’ was deliberately avoided and a completely different word, ‘sorcery’ put in its place. This is was not just due to superstitious ignorance.
During the Middle Ages the Church became the largest manufacturer and supplier of the most popular drug on earth: ALCOHOL. The church sold out to the drug dealing industry, and God’s Word was intentionally kept obscure.
To this day, the Western Church not only makes its own wine for religious use, but also sells it commercially through various monasteries and companies.

There may have been some 'excuse' for this sorry state of affairs in the 16th century, before drug dealing was widely understood and formally criminalized. However, in the 21st century there really is no excuse for failing to properly render the original Greek, and make the truth plain.



Are Drug Dealers Really Going to be Destroyed?

This is the million dollar question! In recent times, some Universalists have tried to re-interpret the bible to support the idea that all people are ultimately saved. When Revelation says,
Rev 21:8 "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"
...the Universalists would have us believe it should be rendered,

"...their PART will be in the Lake of Fire, ..."

In this interpretation, a person's 'part' or 'portion' refers to his works and/or collected earnings for good and bad deeds. From this idea they want you to believe that only their 'bad works' will pass through a kind of testing fire, but the drug dealers themselves (and other extreme criminals) and their souls will be saved, thus 'fulfilling the scriptures' in a humane way.

But can this interpretation hold up? Sadly, NO. For safeguarding the meaning here and removing any ambiguity, the action of the Lake of Fire is plainly identified by the following phrase:

"...the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"



Ordinary Death versus the Second Death

Now ordinary death is horrifying enough: it is often inconvenient, humiliating, slow, painful, and terrifying, especially if the death is a crime being perpetrated upon an innocent victim. We may hope in an afterlife, but death is quite serious, even for sincerely spiritual people. And the New Testament doesn't avoid the issue, or flower it up with euphemisms. Instead it warns seekers of God that bad things can happen.
"you (disciples) will be persecuted: handed over to courts and imprisoned... betrayed even by friends and relatives, and some of you put to death... and hated by all for My name's sake, ...but not a hair of your head will ultimately be lost!" (Luke 21:12f)
Of course we shouldn't be surprised. The very existance of 'sin' can mean that innocent or at least undeserving people can suffer. By definition, murder is killing someone who shouldn't be killed. Experience shows that even children can be victimized, and even good people can still make mistakes that cause injury or cost lives.

Yet we should not exaggerate ordinary death: there are things more terrible than death:
"Don't be afraid of those who kill the body and afterward can do no more.
I will tell you who to fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed,
has the power to cast into hellfire!" (Luke 12:4,5)
This is clearly the Second Death, and is to be feared far more than death.


According to Revelation it is applied against criminals, and evil men. And yet it is also clear from all the warnings, that all men are at risk: that any man could find himself facing the Second Death, if he committed a serious enough sin.

Even John, the Apostle of Love warns us of the gravity of certain sins. He says there is a 'sin that leads to Death', and actually tells Christians NOT to pray for those who commit such sins!
If anyone sees a brother commit a sin that is not a deadly sin, he can pray, and God will extend life to his brother, ...provided it is NOT a deadly sin: There is sin that leads to death: and I am NOT saying that you should pray in that case! (1 John 5:16)
Wow, not only are some people going to be destroyed, but we aren't even supposed to pray for them.



Ordinary Judgement versus Special Judgement: The Second Death

How could the Universalists get it so wrong? Simple: what they are talking about is the common Judgement that everyone faces. All people will have their works, good and bad, judged by God on Judgement Day. Of all the works and deeds, whatever is built upon sand will pass away. (James 5:1-4).

But every sincere Christian or seeker of God believes in God's fair judgement, and certainly doesn't need to fear it. (1 John 4:18) Even if my earthly deeds may turn out to be of little value, I will certainly be grateful to at least be judged fairly, and I'll be happy to make it to heaven, even if I am not much of a hero.


The Horrific Second Death:

But ordinary judgement simply CAN'T be what every Apostle was frantically warning us about! What they are talking about can only be the ultimate penalty for evil works: Pain, self-pity and horror, ending in utter destruction without appeal, as God hands out His Final Devastating Judgement. It makes sense to fear this!

John: "You are well aware that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him."

Peter: "If the righteous are scarcely saved, what will happen to the wicked?"

James: "Faith without deeds is useless!...it is by deeds, not just believing, that someone is justified."

Hebrews: "Whoever breaks the Law is ruthlessly put to death...and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the Covenant as unholy, and insults the Spirit will be condemned to a far more severe punishment."

Paul: "...I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THESE THINGS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"

Jesus: "No one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven."

1 John 3:15/1 Peter 4:18/James 2:20-24/Heb 10:28-29/Gal. 5:20/Luke 12:10

Obviously what these apostles are talking about is NOT ordinary Judgement of men and their works, where the chaff is burnt off, and the wheat remains, or the slag is removed, from true gold through a cleansing fire. Instead, here we are warned of a dire consequence worse than death, an irreversible and violent destruction.


The Book of Revelation is supported by every apostle and leader of the New Testament, although its detailed description of God's Final Judgement is unique. Some who suffer the Wrath of God clearly do NOT repent, and so are NOT saved, but are cast into God's garbage can:
"When it happens, those people will long for death but not find it anywhere!"

"But the survivors of the first plagues refused to repent, or stop their murders, DRUG DEALING, sexual immorality, or robbery."

"This is the Second Death: the Lake of Fire. And anyone whose name was not found written in the Book of Life was thrown into the Lake of Fire."

"And the Demon (Diabolos) who had deceived them was also thrown into the Lake of Fire and Sulfur, where the Beast and False Prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night, aeon after aeon." (Revelation 9:6,21, 20:15 20:10)
This makes it clear that the doctrine of Universal Salvation is bankrupt, and is not supported by the New Testament as a whole.

Anyone can be saved, but not everyone will be.



Of course God doesn't wish anyone to perish, but wishes that all might have Eternal Life. (John 3:16-17)


God is not Mocked

But according to the New Testament view, God's Divine nature, which gives men everywhere ample opportunity to repent, has a complimentary side which ultimately requires justice and fairness, and results in a Final Judgement for some.

God won't force people to repent,
but He will certainly destroy them if they refuse to.



No Hope for Drug Dealers?

We have seen that some people are not saved but are thrown into the Lake of Fire, and some of those who are thrown into the Lake of Fire are DRUG DEALERS. But is God referring to ALL drug dealers, or just some of them?


Jesus made it clear that there are 'small' sins and 'large' sins (Matthew 23:23). We have already seen that some sins lead to death, or worse. (1 John 5:16, Heb.10:28-29), and horrific punishments are prophesied in Revelation. Now please note again that Paul doesn't hesitate grouping DRUG DEALING alongside the worst sins that lead certainly to death and exclude Eternal Life also.
Gal 5:20 "...DRUG DEALING...and things like these I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THEM WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"
And Paul is not just talking about a handful of ringleaders, or some international drug lords only: He warns ordinary church goers that committing these sins leads to death and disqualifies you for Eternal Life! That's pretty much EVERY DRUG DEALER, since it even includes backsliding Christians!

But wait, there may still be hope for a repentant DRUG DEALER: God is not an unjust Judge. We can hope He will make some allowance for ignorance, poverty, deception, or unreasonable circumstances. And indeed, Jesus gives us some hope here:
"The one who knew what his Master wanted, but didn't do it will get a severe beating, but he who did NOT know and earned a beating will get a lighter beating."
(Luke 12:47-48)
A DRUG DEALER who is STILL ALIVE, and capable of repenting and stopping his crimes, could receive forgiveness and be saved:
"As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but prefer the wicked turn back from their evil and live. Turn back! Repent of your evil, for why should you die?" (Ezekiel 33:11)
On the other hand, a Christian who falls away from his faithfulness and commits crimes like DRUG DEALING and murder is in danger of the severest Judgement:
"But the righteous won't be able to count on their righteousness if they sin: If they trust in their righteousness and commit sin, none of their righteous deeds will be remembered! But in the sin they have committed, they will die." (Ezek 33:12-13)



"Don't be deceived, for God is not mocked: Whatever you sow, you will reap." (Gal. 6:7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

koban
August 29th, 2009, 08:26 AM
Does this mean the nice CVS clerk who sells me my son's insulin is going to hell?

Nazaroo
August 29th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Does this mean the nice CVS clerk who sells me my son's insulin is going to hell?

If he was one of the co-conspirators that helped to give your son diabetes, and got him hooked on insulin, yes.

On the other hand, if your son got diabetes from following your advice in breaking the Biblical Food Laws of the Noahic Covenant, then I think you'll be going to hell instead, rather than the local cashier at the drugstore.

Was it you who allowed him to indulge in endless sugar-feedings as a kid, or did you allow him to use recreational drugs as a teen, because everyone else did too?

If those scenarios are familiar, I'd say you live in the neighborhood of modern Sodom. Gated community will take on a whole new meaning soon.

I think a lot of people will be surprised when Johnson & Johnson, Dow Chemical and hundreds of "legal" drug pushers are lined up alongside crack dealers and heroin pushers and thrown into the Lake of Fire.

There is a lot more built on sand, and which will pass away, than you can imagine at the moment.

peace
Nazaroo

This Charming Manc
August 29th, 2009, 03:02 PM
hmmm just a hint oif saved by works here I think ..............

mixed with a hint of looney !

koban
August 29th, 2009, 03:36 PM
:darwinsm: More than a hint!

Tyrathca
August 29th, 2009, 07:15 PM
If he was one of the co-conspirators that helped to give your son diabetes, and got him hooked on insulin, yes. Please stop, the stupid is hurting my brain... Did you even know that insulin is a naturally occuring hormone in our body?

On the other hand, if your son got diabetes from following your advice in breaking the Biblical Food Laws of the Noahic Covenant, then I think you'll be going to hell instead, rather than the local cashier at the drugstore. Sooooo... A two year old is not only able to break these laws etc but also must be punished by being stricken by an autoimmune disease? How does this make sense to you?
(I'm not sure how old his kid was when he got diabetes but it can occur at 2 y.o or even earlier)

Was it you who allowed him to indulge in endless sugar-feedings as a kid, or did you allow him to use recreational drugs as a teen, because everyone else did too? Hey genius, before you criticise someone for allowing their kid to get a disease how about actually learning about it first. Almost universally the cause of insulin dependant diabetes in juveniles is type 1 diabetes which is an autoimmune disease. Type 2 diabetes is the version caused by diet. Type 1 is partly genetic and suspected to be triggered by a viral infection though its cause (like most autoimmune diseases) is largely unknown. What we do know about it though is that it is not at all linked with drug use or diet.
I think a lot of people will be surprised when Johnson & Johnson, Dow Chemical and hundreds of "legal" drug pushers are lined up alongside crack dealers and heroin pushers and thrown into the Lake of Fire. Yeah because saving childrens lives with vital medication is sooooo evil....

Nazaroo
August 30th, 2009, 12:57 PM
hmmm just a hint of saved by works here I think ..............

mixed with a hint of looney !

Did you honestly think a drug-dealer could be saved without repenting?

Or that repenting didn't involve the "work" of stopping his drug dealing?

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
August 30th, 2009, 12:59 PM
:darwinsm: More than a hint!


You have a 'signature' that reads: "Negro, I implore you", and you speak of a hint of "looney"?

Good luck explaining your 'reasonableness' to the Black Panthers.

Nazaroo
August 30th, 2009, 01:17 PM
Please stop, the stupid is hurting my brain... Did you even know that insulin is a naturally occuring hormone in our body?


You pretend to speak on behalf of "science", and yet your argument is about as intelligent as that of a pot-smoker arguing in favor of marijuana:

"Hey, man, its 'natural', so its a-okay! Light up a spliff man."

A Deadly Nightshade is also a natural plant, and so are thousands of other poisonous and harmful substances which are 'natural', including Uranium ore, which sterilizes and causes cancer upon exposure.

Obviously, "natural" is a bogus unscientific argument.

There are literally some six million 'natural' chemicals and hormones manufactured by the liver. Hundreds of thousands of them are essentially poisons if taken in significant quantities. They have purpose only in the context of very limited and carefully controlled bodily processes. You can't just inject them into your body because they are "natural".

But I am not arguing that true diabetes conditions, such as the absence of destruction of the Isles of Langerhans in the Pancreas may pr may not require insulin injections to digest double sugars, or regulate blood-sugar levels.

I spoke to the CAUSE of most diabetic conditions, not the legitimacy or necessity of current treatments (although I could take those on too, on a scientific basis).




Sooooo... A two year old is not only able to break these laws etc but also must be punished by being stricken by an autoimmune disease? How does this make sense to you?
(I'm not sure how old his kid was when he got diabetes but it can occur at 2 y.o or even earlier)


Again your non-sequitous argument completely misses the point.

FIrst of all lets talk objective reality, and scientific historical fact:

The sins of others DO INDEED cause innocent people (often children) to suffer unjustly. This is a historical fact, and one that continues today and in the foreseeable future.

Acknowledging this does not mean I condone or approve of innocent people suffering. The very fact that it is wrong is why I speak out against drug companies for instance, and the harm they do to innocent, unknowing people, who buy into their B.S. and use their products, thus suffering harm.

Since you know nothing about "this kid", why are you explaining the situation you know nothing about to me? Why isn't Koban speaking for himself? Are you Koban? How many aliases do you have?




Hey genius, before you criticise someone for allowing their kid to get a disease how about actually learning about it first. Almost universally the cause of insulin dependant diabetes in juveniles is type 1 diabetes which is an autoimmune disease.


you may be right here, in which case it changes nothing.

auto-immune diseases in children can be traced to the millions of ineffective, needless, and poisonous innoculations which they are forced to receive because of Draconian and Malthusian policies designed to poison and kill of the poor, ethnic minorities, and other undesirables, which are carried out by Rich European NeoNazis.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=47&contentid=6154



Type 2 diabetes is the version caused by diet. Type 1 is partly genetic and suspected to be triggered by a viral infection though its cause (like most autoimmune diseases) is largely unknown. What we do know about it though is that it is not at all linked with drug use or diet. Yeah because saving childrens lives with vital medication is sooooo evil....

You can't have it both ways. Either the cause is "largely unknown" (meaning there is a huge coverup), or else you do know. But since you don't, it is very likely that both kinds of 'diabetes' (included false diagnoses to make even more money for pharmaceutical companies) are indeed linked to drug use (OVER the counter) and diet (North-American foolishness).

Pan Dulche
August 30th, 2009, 01:33 PM
Jesus did drugs. You could also say he dealed them by turning water into wine.

Tyrathca
August 30th, 2009, 05:53 PM
You pretend to speak on behalf of "science", and yet your argument is about as intelligent as that of a pot-smoker arguing in favor of marijuana:

"Hey, man, its 'natural', so its a-okay! Light up a spliff man."

A Deadly Nightshade is also a natural plant, and so are thousands of other poisonous and harmful substances which are 'natural', including Uranium ore, which sterilizes and causes cancer upon exposure.

Obviously, "natural" is a bogus unscientific argument. False analogy, all those examples were from other organisms. I never argued that it is Ok because it is found naturally in the environment, I argued it is OK because it is found naturally IN US i.e. its MEANT to be there.

There are literally some six million 'natural' chemicals and hormones manufactured by the liver. Hundreds of thousands of them are essentially poisons if taken in significant quantities. They have purpose only in the context of very limited and carefully controlled bodily processes. You can't just inject them into your body because they are "natural". Now an appropriate analogy, yet again you show your ignorance. First of all almost everything is toxic given the right dose (even water - and I don't mean drowning). Second of all insulin is created by the pancreas not the liver. Third the dosages given to type 1 diabetics is not "significant", in fact it is meant to mimic the amount that they would produce if they were healthy.

But I am not arguing that true diabetes conditions, such as the absence of destruction of the Isles of Langerhans in the Pancreas may pr may not require insulin injections to digest double sugars, or regulate blood-sugar levels. That IS type 1 diabetes.... So what are you arguing against?

I spoke to the CAUSE of most diabetic conditions, not the legitimacy or necessity of current treatments (although I could take those on too, on a scientific basis). You did both. As for the cause, which one as you mentioned several? Breaking the biblical laws? Sugary diet? (That one causes type 2 diabetes, not type 1) Drugs? (Causes neither, but can be responsible for other diseases) What?


Since you know nothing about "this kid", why are you explaining the situation you know nothing about to me? Why isn't Koban speaking for himself? Are you Koban? How many aliases do you have? I know he is a kid and he has diabetes. I don't need to know much else. This kid could not exist for all it matters since there are thousands of other real living kids in exactly the same situation as I am describing. I actually have a cousin with type 1 diabetes so we could talk about him if you want. And no I am not Koban, thats just silly.


you may be right here, in which case it changes nothing.

auto-immune diseases in children can be traced to the millions of ineffective, needless, and poisonous innoculations which they are forced to receive because of Draconian and Malthusian policies designed to poison and kill of the poor, ethnic minorities, and other undesirables, which are carried out by Rich European NeoNazis.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=47&contentid=6154 Oh dear.... Maybe I really am wasting my time here.
First there is no link between immunisationsa and autoimmune disease. There is real research into this which I can cite if you want, actual journal article peer reviewed research not funded by drug companies, though I wonder if should waste my time (it would take me 10-15 minutes probably). Do you have any evidence that there is a link other than a random article on a random website that posits no evidence/sources for its claims?


You can't have it both ways. Either the cause is "largely unknown" (meaning there is a huge coverup), or else you do know. But since you don't, it is very likely that both kinds of 'diabetes' (included false diagnoses to make even more money for pharmaceutical companies) are indeed linked to drug use (OVER the counter) and diet (North-American foolishness). We KNOW what causes type 2 diabetes, the evidence is unanimous and unequivocally in favour of genetics, diet/weight/exercise and occassionally some medical conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome. Type 1 (a different disease) we don't know the cause but that doesn't mean we can't know what ISN'T the cause, all we simply have to do is do epidemiological studies and see if there is a correlation between getting T1DM and the factor being measured. So far one of the few links is genetic but this is not the sole cause (it results in a high relative risk but still does not result in a high absolute risk). Not knowing the cause is no more a cover-up than not knowing how to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity is a cover up. Like many things we just need more research.

One Eyed Jack
August 30th, 2009, 08:05 PM
Jesus did drugs. You could also say he dealed them by turning water into wine.

Nah -- that was a freebie.

Nazaroo
August 30th, 2009, 09:28 PM
Jesus did drugs. You could also say he dealed them by turning water into wine.

only a Russian Communist alcoholic would take the Cana-Wedding story literally, in order to justify boozing.


The real Jesus did no miracle at Cana turning 180 gallons of water into alcohol for an already dangerously drunk crowd of losers, unless he intended to kill them.

The fact is, this is a parable meant to divert the authorities from the real first 'sign', which was the Temple Cleansing, a plain revolutionary and political act and one which the Jewish authorities and Romans took seriously and crucified him for.

Anderson & Structure of John
(http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/INT-EV/anderson2.html#s06)
The Cana Story is a substitute story read publicly while the Church was still an underground movement. The real story, the Temple Cleansing, was read only in private.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
August 30th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Oh dear.... Maybe I really am wasting my time here.

First, there is no link between immunisations and autoimmune disease.

Boy you really are a 'tard:


Vaccines Linked To Autoimmune Diseases
http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSGen.html
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/bf712.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/autism-autoimmune-disease_n_226342.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15196997
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20043138265



Drug Abuse and AutoImmune Disorders

http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/article.cfm/drug_abuse_and_ad_development
http://www.suite101.com/blog/daisyelaine/autoimmune_psychiatric_disorders
http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/narcolepsy-autoimmune-disorder-stanford-researcher-says-7155.html

Granite
August 31st, 2009, 08:19 AM
I see Nazaroo's acting crazier than usual.

Somebody should take some of the same stuff he's griping about and calm down...

TomO
August 31st, 2009, 08:28 AM
only a Russian Communist alcoholic would take the Cana-Wedding story literally, in order to justify boozing.


The real Jesus did no miracle at Cana turning 180 gallons of water into alcohol for an already dangerously drunk crowd of losers, unless he intended to kill them.

The fact is, this is a parable meant to divert the authorities from the real first 'sign', which was the Temple Cleansing, a plain revolutionary and political act and one which the Jewish authorities and Romans took seriously and crucified him for.

http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/anderson2.html#s06

The Cana Story is a substitute story read publicly while the Church was still an underground movement. The real story, the Temple Cleansing, was read only in private.

peace
Nazaroo

Gee....I thought you were going to post something crazy...like it was Grape Juice or something.....I'm glad I was proved wrong. :doh:

koban
August 31st, 2009, 08:52 AM
Well, I just finished the drugs provided by my local supermarket (caffeine in my coffee and aspirin). I do feel sorry for the checkout clerk, who is, apparently, going to hell for selling them to me. :(

TomO
August 31st, 2009, 09:01 AM
Well, I just finished the drugs provided by my local supermarket (caffeine in my coffee and aspirin). I do feel sorry for the checkout clerk, who is, apparently, going to hell for selling them to me. :(

:Plain: Oh...they're totally Hellbound....just think of all the Tryptophan in meats, cheeses, eggs etc...

Selaphiel
August 31st, 2009, 10:53 AM
Yeah those vaccines sure are a bother. They have erradicated true pleasures like this: (WARNING! IT IS A PICTURE OF DISEASES, NOT A PRETTY SIGHT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.)

http://www.williams.edu/resources/chapin/graphics/Baltimore%20smallpox%201.jpg (SMALLPOX)

and

http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/global/david/dwe002/dwe002g/dwe00209g01.gif (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1680000/images/_1684488_pic2.jpg) (POLIO)

Not vaccinating against dangerous diseases is highly immoral. You only contribute to the return of horrible diseases by giving them a growth basis.

Nazaroo
August 31st, 2009, 12:50 PM
Yeah those vaccines sure are a bother. They have erradicated true pleasures like this: (WARNING! IT IS A PICTURE OF DISEASES, NOT A PRETTY SIGHT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.)

http://www.williams.edu/resources/chapin/graphics/Baltimore%20smallpox%201.jpg (SMALLPOX)

and

http://www.dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/global/david/dwe002/dwe002g/dwe00209g01.gif (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1680000/images/_1684488_pic2.jpg) (POLIO)

Not vaccinating against dangerous diseases is highly immoral. You only contribute to the return of horrible diseases by giving them a growth basis.

What a shallow, cheap sensationalist trick:

Why not just post pictures of diseased vaginas to "prove" the current police policy on prostitution is correct, effective, and sincere?


How about real scientific evidence, instead of "shock & awe" tactics better reserved for brainwashing morons?

Polio Vaccine Causes Outbreak of Polio:
http://www.drudge.com/news/124148/live-polio-vaccine-causes-outbreak-nigeria
http://www.naturalnews.com/022508.html
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1997/dec/dec1997kent.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/pdf_extract/2/5103/1040-b
http://njvaccinationchoice.org/homework.html

Vaccinations don't do anything but make millions of people sick, and make billions of dollars for drug companies.

Suckers.

Nazaroo

TomO
August 31st, 2009, 01:28 PM
Jonas Salk am da debil :dunce:

Selaphiel
August 31st, 2009, 04:32 PM
What a shallow, cheap sensationalist trick:

Why not just post pictures of diseased vaginas to "prove" the current police policy on prostitution is correct, effective, and sincere?


How about real scientific evidence, instead of "shock & awe" tactics better reserved for brainwashing morons?

Polio Vaccine Causes Outbreak of Polio:
http://www.drudge.com/news/124148/live-polio-vaccine-causes-outbreak-nigeria
http://www.naturalnews.com/022508.html
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1997/dec/dec1997kent.htm
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/pdf_extract/2/5103/1040-b
http://njvaccinationchoice.org/homework.html

Vaccinations don't do anything but make millions of people sick, and make billions of dollars for drug companies.

Suckers.

Nazaroo


I'm sure that is why both those diseases are extinct in the rich parts of the world where we vaccinate, while they are still alive and well in the third world where the same vaccinations do not exist or are in scarce supply. It must be a coincidence!

You do not impress me by linking fanatical websites with no scientific integrity or reputation. Probably a faulty vaccine in that Polio case, something like 99.999% of people vaccinated for Polio do not get the disease, so basically you want to argue that the 0.001% is the important number here. But by all means, abstain from the vaccines all you want, that just leaves more for people who appreciate the luxury of modern day medicine.

Not to mention the insanity of comparing modern day medicine to the word "pharmakeia" as it is used by NT writers. For Paul and John, pharmakeia is the means of using "magic" or "sorcery" as a way of coping with diseases or to use it as stimulants. Medicine is hardly sorcery or ritual based, it is based on the physical reality and observation. To argue that alcohol is evil is also incorrect. Abuse of alcohol most certainly is, but to say that drinking wine is a sin is not biblical. Jesus almost certainly drank wine, simply because that is what they used to drink.

Nazaroo
August 31st, 2009, 09:06 PM
I'm sure that is why both those diseases are extinct in the rich parts of the world where we vaccinate, while they are still alive and well in the third world where the same vaccinations do not exist or are in scarce supply. It must be a coincidence!


The whole point of Malthus and modern ethnic murder is to kill non-whites. Of course that means that "medicine" shipped to the third world is worthless, and actually kills people.

Its no coincidence.

Malthus and the European Elite plan to kill Blacks and Asians:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12276a.htm <--- On Malthus
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html <--- Malthus' influence on Darwin






You do not impress me by linking fanatical websites with no scientific integrity or reputation.

Actually most of the links were to online medical journals. Don't be an ***.




Probably a faulty vaccine in that Polio case, something like 99.999% of people vaccinated for Polio do not get the disease, so basically you want to argue that the 0.001% is the important number here. But by all means, abstain from the vaccines all you want, that just leaves more for people who appreciate the luxury of modern day medicine.

Your elitism raises its ugly head. Didn't have to scratch very far below the surface on your motives did we?





Not to mention the insanity of comparing modern day medicine to the word "pharmakeia" as it is used by NT writers.
For Paul and John, pharmakeia is the means of using "magic" or "sorcery" as a way of coping with diseases or to use it as stimulants.


Wrong again.

As early as the 2nd century, early Christian writers were using "pharmakeia" in the normal sense, referring to DRUG PEDDLING. They were mainly concerned with the use of drugs to deliberately cause spontaneous abortions, as the Didaskalia and the Apostolic Constitutions make abundantly clear.

The fathers understood "pharmakeia" to mean drug dealing, and specifically condemned (big surprise) crude contraceptives.

It was only in the later Middle Ages that monks confused (or wilfully obscured) the meaning of "pharmakeia", as 'sorcery'.




Medicine is hardly sorcery or ritual based, it is based on the physical reality and observation.
Actually, modern medicine is a cult, or rather two cults: 90% of modern doctors believe in either (a) drugs, or (b) the knife. Both are false gods, and amount to modern idolatry and denial of the God of the Bible.




Jesus almost certainly drank wine, simply because that is what they used to drink.Jesus was a Nazarite, like his predecessor John the Baptist. The Nazarite Vow is found in Numbers chapter 6, and DEFINES holiness for all Jews. The later Gentile Christians (Romans) obscured the plain references, because they sold out and the Church became the largest drug dealer in Europe, manufacturing and distributing Roman wine.



To argue that alcohol is evil is also incorrect. Abuse of alcohol most certainly is, but to say that drinking wine is a sin is not biblical.
Alcohol is an industrial solvent, and a poison. It is not a food at all, but takes energy to remove from the body and consumes resources and kills healthy cells.

Drinking alcohol is an unhealthy, twisted practice that plainly causes more damage and misery in Western society than any other drug.

Ask any chemist, doctor, or policeman. Only an idiot would think otherwise.


peace
Nazaroo

Cracked
August 31st, 2009, 09:53 PM
I have to hurry and warn those folks at the Shopko pharmacy! They sell me pills for my heart burn - the irony is that they are going to burn! Oh no! (BRB)

Selaphiel
September 1st, 2009, 03:09 AM
The whole point of Malthus and modern ethnic murder is to kill non-whites. Of course that means that "medicine" shipped to the third world is worthless, and actually kills people.

Its no coincidence.

Malthus and the European Elite plan to kill Blacks and Asians:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12276a.htm <--- On Malthus
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html <--- Malthus' influence on Darwin




Actually most of the links were to online medical journals. Don't be an ***.


Your elitism raises its ugly head. Didn't have to scratch very far below the surface on your motives did we?



Wrong again.

As early as the 2nd century, early Christian writers were using "pharmakeia" in the normal sense, referring to DRUG PEDDLING. They were mainly concerned with the use of drugs to deliberately cause spontaneous abortions, as the Didaskalia and the Apostolic Constitutions make abundantly clear.

The fathers understood "pharmakeia" to mean drug dealing, and specifically condemned (big surprise) crude contraceptives.

It was only in the later Middle Ages that monks confused (or wilfully obscured) the meaning of "pharmakeia", as 'sorcery'.


Actually, modern medicine is a cult, or rather two cults: 90% of modern doctors believe in either (a) drugs, or (b) the knife. Both are false gods, and amount to modern idolatry and denial of the God of the Bible.



Jesus was a Nazarite, like his predecessor John the Baptist. The Nazarite Vow is found in Numbers chapter 6, and DEFINES holiness for all Jews. The later Gentile Christians (Romans) obscured the plain references, because they sold out and the Church became the largest drug dealer in Europe, manufacturing and distributing Roman wine.

Alcohol is an industrial solvent, and a poison. It is not a food at all, but takes energy to remove from the body and consumes resources and kills healthy cells.

Drinking alcohol is an unhealthy, twisted practice that plainly causes more damage and misery in Western society than any other drug.

Ask any chemist, doctor, or policeman. Only an idiot would think otherwise.


peace
Nazaroo

Your first point does nothing to question the effect of the "real medicine", all you are doing are pulling in some conspiracy plots. If they are trying to kill people in Africa with vaccines, they are doing an awfully poor job.

This report about vaccines against pneumococcal diseases seems to report that lives were saved:

"Results of the trial indicated that in the group of children who received pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, there were:

37% fewer cases of pneumonia (as confirmed by chest X-ray);
15% fewer hospital admissions
16% reduction in overall mortality; and
half the rate of laboratory-confirmed pneumococcal pneumonia, meningitis and septicaemia.
Moreover, the vaccine was 77% effective in preventing infections caused by nine serotypes (strains) of pneumococcal bacteria whose sugar capsules make up the vaccine.

In sum, in this rural African setting, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was shown in this trial to be highly effective against pneumonia and invasive pneumococcal disease and it can substantially reduce admissions and improve child survival." (Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2005/s03/en/index.html)

Your comment on some 2nd century meaning of the word pharmakeia is meaningless. Paul and John wrote their books in around 55-95AD, that is not 2nd century. The words of the writings must be understood in their own historical context. When Paul uses the word pharmakeia, he means sorcery or magic based rituals which invokes spiritual power to cure diseases or other pathologies.

You claim that medicine is a cult who believes in the false gods of surgery and medicine. There is no substance to this argument, there is no religious character in either surgery or modern drug treatment (unlike the days of Paul writings). Modern medicine is a handiwork. To claim they worship false gods makes about as much as sense as saying that car repair men worship the false gods of the wrench and oil.
Modern drug treatment (drugs tested in scientific trials of the highest standard) and surgery are used for one simple reason, they work.


Alcohol is an industrial solvent, and a poison. It is not a food at all, but takes energy to remove from the body and consumes resources and kills healthy cells.

Drinking alcohol is an unhealthy, twisted practice that plainly causes more damage and misery in Western society than any other drug.

Ask any chemist, doctor, or policeman. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

First of all, alcohol is a natural occuring phenomena and no one claims that it is food. The question is, is it a sin according to the Bible? And the answer is no:



Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart (Ecclesiastes 9:7).


He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth. And wine that makes glad the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread which strengthens man's heart (Psalm 104:14, 15).


And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household (Deuteronomy 14:26).


I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; they shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them" (Amos 9:14).


Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1).


How fair is your love, my sister, my spouse! How much better than wine is your love, and the scent of your perfumes (Song of Solomon 4:10).

Not to mention the use of wine imagery in the parables of Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, wine is the gift of God.
Abuse of alcohol on the other hand is a sin, and it is abuse of alcohol that causes problems, not normal consumption.

Tyrathca
September 1st, 2009, 03:11 AM
Boy you really are a 'tard: No I'm just someone who has studied medicine and been taught about immunology and autoimmune diseases.


Vaccines Linked To Autoimmune Diseases
http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSGen.html
A companies press release talking about Gulf War syndrome where they have a direct financial incentive to promote the link due ot tests they could make for the government. Not only that it is refering to contaminated vaccines only.
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/bf712.htm A news article that doesn't well describe the ACTUAL findings rather merely the interpretations of data. No way to tell if the interpretation of the data is justified or the method it used to gathert his data was accurate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/06/autism-autoimmune-disease_n_226342.html Doesn't even mention vaccines..... Brilliant research there.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15196997 "The available evidence derived from several negative epidemiological studies is reassuring and at least indicates that vaccines are not a major cause of autoimmune diseases." and that vaccines do not result in an "overall increase in the disease incidence". At best it says that vaccines very rarely causing autoimmune disease in a very small at risk population can not be definitively ruled out.

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20043138265 Exact same research abstract as the one above.... did you even READ these?

Drug Abuse and AutoImmune Disorders Well I only said vaccines but anyway....

http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/article.cfm/drug_abuse_and_ad_development[/QUOTE] Interesting article but speculative only (I may read it in more depth later due to interests sake), definitely not useful evidence though.

http://www.suite101.com/blog/daisyelaine/autoimmune_psychiatric_disorders Makes links between psychiatric conditions and autoimmune disease (unreferenced and tenuous at best) and then makes a further (unreferenced and tenuous) link between autoimmunity and drugs (amoung other things).

http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/narcolepsy-autoimmune-disorder-stanford-researcher-says-7155.html One researcher says there is a possible link between narcolepsy and autoimmunity, and that more research is needed. Did not see any reference to drug use causing this in my skim read.


Sooooo.... You only directly referenced one journal article and that did not support your case. All the others were news articles about research or non-peer reviewed commentaries on research in the field. Great work there.........

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 05:44 AM
The question is, is it a sin according to the Bible? And the answer is no:



Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart (Ecclesiastes 9:7 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Ecclesiastes%209.7)).


He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth. And wine that makes glad the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread which strengthens man's heart (Psalm 104:14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Psalm%20104.14), 15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Psalm%20104.15)).


And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household (Deuteronomy 14:26 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Deuteronomy%2014.26)).


I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; they shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them" (Amos 9:14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Amos%209.14)).


Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price (Isaiah 55:1 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Isaiah%2055.1)).


How fair is your love, my sister, my spouse! How much better than wine is your love, and the scent of your perfumes (Song of Solomon 4:10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Song%20of%20Solomon%204.10)).

Not to mention the use of wine imagery in the parables of Jesus Christ. According to the Bible, wine is the gift of God.
Abuse of alcohol on the other hand is a sin, and it is abuse of alcohol that causes problems, not normal consumption.
Since the whole issue rests on the question of TRANSLATION, both of "pharmakeia" and also "oinos", parroting the very English translations that are under suspicion proves absolutely zilch and is acting like a moron.

Stop being a dunce.



A companies press release talking about Gulf War syndrome where they have a direct financial incentive to promote the link due ot tests they could make for the government. Not only that it is refering to contaminated vaccines only.


And thanks for admitting that in fact the links I posted WERE reputable medical and scientific journals, contrary to your previous post in which you hadn't even looked at them but decided to mislead others anyway:

I guess that makes you a repentant liar, as well as an unscientific buffoon. I hope you never graduate in your medical studies. The last thing we need is another dishonest doctor.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 06:18 AM
Not to mention the insanity of comparing modern day medicine to the word "pharmakeia" as it is used by NT writers. For Paul and John, pharmakeia is the means of using "magic" or "sorcery" as a way of coping with diseases or to use it as stimulants. Medicine is hardly sorcery or ritual based, it is based on the physical reality and observation.
Your concern is to defend "modern medicine".

My concern is to condemn both illegal and legal drug dealing, and show that the Bible is aware of this abominable crime, and condemns it thoroughly.


Your comment on some 2nd century meaning of the word pharmakeia is meaningless. Paul and John wrote their books in around 55-95AD, that is not 2nd century. The words of the writings must be understood in their own historical context. When Paul uses the word pharmakeia, he means sorcery or magic based rituals which invokes spiritual power to cure diseases or other pathologies.

The fact that within a hundred years of Jesus' and Paul's time, Christian writers and bishops used and understood "pharmakeia" to mean DRUG DEALING is apparently not enough evidence for you as to the obvious meaning of the Greek word.

But you have NO counter-references to show the word ever meant anything else in Jesus' time or in the 400 years following.

And second, you'll have to present a history of the CHANGE in meaning of the word, and explain just how the entire early Church was misled on its meaning for about 800 years, only to have the meaning changed back to "sorcery" in the Middle Ages and Reformation times.

The problem is, THERE IS NO SUCH HISTORY OF THE CHANGE IN MEANING OF THE WORD.

The Greek word "pharmakeia" has always meant drug dealing, even from Homeric times.

Good luck pedalling your imaginary history of the Greek language.

But why are you bothering to derail my thread on DRUG DEALERS, if you have no interest in the main topic?

If your concern is the legitimacy of "modern" medicine, why not just start a thread on that, and see who is interested?

If you want to post here, lets talk about DRUG DEALERS, and why they are going to HELL.


peace
Nazaroo

Tyrathca
September 1st, 2009, 06:26 AM
And thanks for admitting that in fact the links I posted WERE reputable medical and scientific journals, contrary to your previous post in which you hadn't even looked at them but decided to mislead others anyway: Ummm no.... What planet are you on? Only two of the links were to a journal article (and they were to the SAME article, just through different sites, which indicates you didn't even read them). And that one article was a literature review which did not support your case in the way you claimed.
I hope you never graduate in your medical studies. The last thing we need is another dishonest doctor. Oh how nice of you to say... But why do you think I am dishonest? I acurately critiqued your "research" and found it lacking. Were any of my colleages to have given me research sourced so poorly (regardless of what they were arguing) they would have deserved to be criticised. You want to play with the big boys in research put in the effort and do it right, which preferably means cite the article directly and not some non-peer reviewed piece and make them wade through text to get the references (if what you linked even properly references itself, which some of those links did not).

I care about studies with large populations and statistically (and clinically) significant results. What is not adequate are studies that are too small to say anything other than "more research needed" or from whom unjustified explanations are drawn. This is all basic evidence based medicine, you show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. I have no vested interest, what would I have to gain in perpetuating a deception concerning vaccines?

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 06:53 AM
Ummm no.... What planet are you on? Only two of the links were to a journal article (and they were to the SAME article, just through different sites, which indicates you didn't even read them). And that one article was a literature review which did not support your case in the way you claimed. Oh how nice of you to say... But why do you think I am dishonest? I acurately critiqued your "research" and found it lacking. Were any of my colleages to have given me research sourced so poorly (regardless of what they were arguing) they would have deserved to be criticised. You want to play with the big boys in research put in the effort and do it right, which preferably means cite the article directly and not some non-peer reviewed piece and make them wade through text to get the references (if what you linked even properly references itself, which some of those links did not).

I care about studies with large populations and statistically (and clinically) significant results. What is not adequate are studies that are too small to say anything other than "more research needed" or from whom unjustified explanations are drawn. This is all basic evidence based medicine, you show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. I have no vested interest, what would I have to gain in perpetuating a deception concerning vaccines?

Again you just continue to ignore what this thread is all about and miss the main point.

I'm not concerned at the moment to condemn modern medicine, although I gladly would, for all of its corruption and the misery that it has caused.

We are here to talk about DRUG DEALERS and their fate, whether illegal, such as those who run cocaine (namely the CIA and cartels) or those who run heroin (namely the American Govt. in Afganistan), or, LEGAL drug dealers, such as the major German pharmaceutical companies, who have murdered millions.

If you have anything useful to contribute, please do so.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of modern medicine (quackery) start another thread, and get out of this one.

If you want to debate the effectiveness of vaccines, versus the irrepairable harm they do, again, start a new thread. I have no doubt at all that those who violently promote (force) vaccinations upon an unwilling and ignorant populace are indeed going to hell.

I also have no doubt that a large number of greedy materialistic doctors who perform needless operations and prescribe poisonous drugs will also be going to hell.

But that is another thread for another day.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 07:05 AM
My first post still stands:


Drug Dealers In the Bible? Where?

Drug dealing is treated gravely and severely condemned in the New Testament: 5 times.

(Gal.5:20 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Gal.5.20), Rev.9:21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev.9.21), 18:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2018.23), 21:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2021.8), 22:15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2022.15), original Greek)

Paul Spoke out against Drug Dealing:
Gal 5:20 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Gal%205.20) "Now the works of the flesh are OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, uncleanness, ... DRUG DEALING ( pharmakeia )...and things like these I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THEM WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"
John also Speaks out against Drugs:
Rev. 9:21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev.%209.21) "Nor did they even repent of their murders or their DRUG DEALING (ton pharmakon) or their sexual immorality or their robbery."

Rev 22:15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2022.15) "OUTSIDE (heaven) are the dogs and the DRUG DEALERS (hoi pharmakoi), and everyone who practises falsehood."

Rev 18:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2018.23) Babylon the Great City has fallen...All nations were deceived by your DRUG DEALING (en te pharmakeia)"

Rev 21:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2021.8) "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"

See you in hell, you murderers, unless you repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 08:02 AM
Swine Flu Hoax of 1976 costs over 3 Billion dollars in lawsuits and medical damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83YNxxnxiIA&feature=channel

koban
September 1st, 2009, 08:06 AM
My first post still stands:


Drug Dealers In the Bible? Where?

Drug dealing is treated gravely and severely condemned in the New Testament: 5 times.

(Gal.5:20 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Gal.5.20), Rev.9:21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev.9.21), 18:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2018.23), 21:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2021.8), 22:15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2022.15), original Greek)

Paul Spoke out against Drug Dealing:
Gal 5:20 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Gal%205.20) "Now the works of the flesh are OBVIOUS: sexual immorality, uncleanness, ... DRUG DEALING ( pharmakeia )...and things like these I am warning you, THOSE WHO DO THEM WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD!"
John also Speaks out against Drugs:
Rev. 9:21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev.%209.21) "Nor did they even repent of their murders or their DRUG DEALING (ton pharmakon) or their sexual immorality or their robbery."

Rev 22:15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2022.15) "OUTSIDE (heaven) are the dogs and the DRUG DEALERS (hoi pharmakoi), and everyone who practises falsehood."

Rev 18:23 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2018.23) Babylon the Great City has fallen...All nations were deceived by your DRUG DEALING (en te pharmakeia)"

Rev 21:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/nkjv/Rev%2021.8) "But as for the ...DRUG DEALERS (pharmakois) their place will be in the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death!"

See you in hell, you murderers, unless you repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus the Christ.




Guess I'm heading for hell then, because I provided my son with drugs for years.

Selaphiel
September 1st, 2009, 08:49 AM
Since the whole issue rests on the question of TRANSLATION, both of "pharmakeia" and also "oinos", parroting the very English translations that are under suspicion proves absolutely zilch and is acting like a moron.

Stop being a dunce.

Well, let us check the Hebrew then.

Ecclesiastes 9:7, Psalms 104:15 and Amos 9:14 : Word used for wine in those passages is yayin, the same word used for what Noah drank. Ergo, it is alcoholic wine.

Deuteronomy 14:26: The word used for drink here is shekar, which means strong intoxicating drink.

There is no doubt that alcohol is legitimate according to the word of God.
You are confusing abuse of alcohol with drinking alcohol in a responsible way. To support your claim you twist scripture to fit an unbiblical view on wine and other alcoholic drinks.
If you do not want to drink it that is fine, but claiming people are going to hell for it is false.

Your claim for knowing Koine Greek is kind of destroyed by anyone who can use a dictionary.

Pharmakoia has the following translation options according to the Bibleworks dictionary:

5331 farmakei,a pharmakeia {far-mak-i'-ah}
Meaning: 1) the use or the administering of drugs 2) poisoning 3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it 4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
Origin: from 5332;; n f
Usage: AV - sorcery 2, witchcraft 1; 3

The contextual use of the word is as it says under usage: Sorcery or witchcraft. So while it can mean administering of drugs, that is not what the authors intended to say. In other words, it is meaning 3 and 4 that are relevant to the passages you list.

And you keep calling people morons. Maybe you should watch yourself instead of condemning others: Matthew 5:22

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 09:21 AM
Well, let us check the Hebrew then.

Ecclesiastes 9:7, Psalms 104:15 and Amos 9:14 : Word used for wine in those passages is yayin, the same word used for what Noah drank. Ergo, it is alcoholic wine.

Deuteronomy 14:26: The word used for drink here is shekar, which means strong intoxicating drink.


I'm glad you are making an effort at this. But your analysis is sloppy, incomplete, and error-ridden.

You correctly make note that there are two (actually about 8) different Hebrew words that have been incorrectly translated with the same word "wine".

Which is only further evidence of the incompetance of translators.

You observe that "yayin" can clearly refer to intoxicating drugs like alcoholic beverages fermented from grapes and other fruit (wines), grains (beers and ales) and even concentrated man-made drugs (such as brandy and hard liquor).

Then you make an assertion about the second word, "shekar", with no support whatsoever, as if they were synonyms. In the 21st century, after hundreds of years of debate on this subject, you ought to have done better than this tripe.





There is no doubt that alcohol is legitimate according to the word of God.


Alcohol is not mentioned in the Bible, because modern chemistry and recent knowledge has only just identified this chemical byproduct as the waste produced by moulds and yeasts.

The Bible mentions early fruit drinks and products which may or may not contain alcohol, but that cannot be determined from the Biblical text, except indirectly in specific instances from the effects of some concoctions on human beings (detrimental effects like intoxication).




You are confusing abuse of alcohol with drinking alcohol in a responsible way.


There is no "responsible" way to consume a known and scientifically identified toxin which has no nutritional value and is detrimental in any quantity to all higher biological organisms.

If you are making a claim that modern alcoholic "wines" have some medicinal value, then you have already lost the argument, because any medicinal value as a result of remaining nutrients in "wine" can be had WITHOUT fermentation and WITHOUT alcohol as an ingredient.

To put it bluntly, just because alcohol doesn't completely destroy all the nutrients in grape-juice, does not in any way support the claim that the alcohol in "wine" has any benefit to humans.

Using that logic, we could mix pig excrement with our food, and because this doesn't completely destroy its nutritional value, we could claim that pig excrement was beneficial to eat.

By the way, if the Word of God, or the Koran, or any religious writing contradicted scientific fact, it would not be of value except as toilet-paper.



To support your claim you twist scripture to fit an unbiblical view on wine and other alcoholic drinks.


No. I hold a scientific view on the ingredient alcohol, which is a well-known and long-studied chemical compound currently destroying Western civilization because of false and dangerous doctrines like the one you are promoting.



If you do not want to drink it that is fine, but claiming people are going to hell for it is false.



According to the Prophets in the Old Testament, those who not only commit sin, but teach others to do so, will die.




Your claim for knowing Koine Greek is kind of destroyed by anyone who can use a dictionary.



Using a dictionary does NOT make you any kind of expert, as this proves:



Pharmakoia has the following translation options according to the Bibleworks dictionary:

5331 farmakei,a pharmakeia {far-mak-i'-ah}
Meaning: 1) the use or the administering of drugs 2) poisoning 3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it 4) metaph. the deceptions and seductions of idolatry
Origin: from 5332;; n f
Usage: AV - sorcery 2, witchcraft 1; 3

The contextual use of the word is as it says under usage: Sorcery or witchcraft.



This is a legitimate listing for the dictionary, but it has no authority at all, except to point to the fact that MODERN translations, in this case even those of the Reformation such as the King James and Douay/Rheims, have offered this INTERPRETATION of the underlying Greek, which is in fact WRONG.

There is no earlier support for such a rendering or translation. The first translation of "Pharmakeia" as "sorcery" was done around 1550 A.D., at a time when Europe was buried in superstition and ignorance, and they burnt women at the stake as witches.






So while it can mean administering of drugs, that is not what the authors intended to say. In other words, it is meaning 3 and 4 that are relevant to the passages you list.



You admit that the primary meaning (#1) of your dictionary gives DRUG DEALING, but then you claim that the "authors", in this case presumably the NT writers meant "sorcery".

You have no evidence for this whatsoever. Your claim is an empty tissue, unsupported by any historical evidence predating Martin Luther and his ignorant followers.




And you keep calling people morons. Maybe you should watch yourself instead of condemning others: Matthew 5:22

Matthew was the last gospel written, by committee in an attempt to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians, and heal over the controversy and rift between them, by blending and harmonizing the teaching of Paul and Luke/Acts with that of James and Peter.

That is why there are about a dozen insertions from the Letter of James into the Sermon on the Mount, which was taken from Luke originally, and has had the whole 'social gospel' aspect of the speech conveniently removed for rich people.

Enjoy Matthew. I'll stick with Luke, which is more authentic.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 09:27 AM
Guess I'm heading for hell then, because I provided my son with drugs for years.

You can always repent, and be willing to humbly learn something new.

Perhaps you can avoid hell. Ezekiel taught that as long as a man was still breathing, there was hope in repentance.

peace
Nazaroo

koban
September 1st, 2009, 09:43 AM
You're a silly little fool Naz. :wave2:

Selaphiel
September 1st, 2009, 10:07 AM
I'm glad you are making an effort at this. But your analysis is sloppy, incomplete, and error-ridden.

You correctly make note that there are two (actually about 8) different Hebrew words that have been incorrectly translated with the same word "wine".

Which is only further evidence of the incompetance of translators.

You observe that "yayin" can clearly refer to intoxicating drugs like alcoholic beverages fermented from grapes and other fruit (wines), grains (beers and ales) and even concentrated man-made drugs (such as brandy and hard liquor).

Then you make an assertion about the second word, "shekar", with no support whatsoever, as if they were synonyms. In the 21st century, after hundreds of years of debate on this subject, you ought to have done better than this tripe.

Shekar does indeed mean strong drink, strong wine or any form of strong fermented drink which have an intoxicating effect. The main difference between yayin and shekar seems to be that shekar is stronger in terms of alcohol content.

<07941> (shekar) (1016b)
Meaning: intoxicating drink, strong drink
Origin: from 7937
Usage: drunkards*(1), liquor(1), strong drink(21)



Alcohol is not mentioned in the Bible, because modern chemistry and recent knowledge has only just identified this chemical byproduct as the waste produced by moulds and yeasts.

The Bible mentions early fruit drinks and products which may or may not contain alcohol, but that cannot be determined from the Biblical text, except indirectly in specific instances from the effects of some concoctions on human beings (detrimental effects like intoxication).

I think they had excellent knowledge about fermentation. Maybe not on the chemical level, but they probably understood that fermentation in one way or another altered the substance of the drink and caused intoxication if one over-indulged in it.



There is no "responsible" way to consume a known and scientifically identified toxin which has no nutritional value and is detrimental in any quantity to all higher biological organisms.

If you are making a claim that modern alcoholic "wines" have some medicinal value, then you have already lost the argument, because any medicinal value as a result of remaining nutrients in "wine" can be had WITHOUT fermentation and WITHOUT alcohol as an ingredient.

Alcohol is healthy? I've made no such claim. But drinking alcohol in a responsible manner is not very dangerous. Alcohol in drinks do serve a purpose though, the taste of wine and beer are largely determined by alcohol, in that way it serves as an aromatic compound.

To put it bluntly, just because alcohol doesn't completely destroy all the nutrients in grape-juice, does not in any way support the claim that the alcohol in "wine" has any benefit to humans.


Using that logic, we could mix pig excrement with our food, and because this doesn't completely destroy its nutritional value, we could claim that pig excrement was beneficial to eat.

If you find that pig excrement improves your food, be my guest. Other than that excrement is dangerous in pretty much any amount due to the bacteria found in it. Even the smallest bit of excrement will make you severly sick, a glass of wine or a beer will not.


By the way, if the Word of God, or the Koran, or any religious writing contradicted scientific fact, it would not be of value except as toilet-paper.

Maybe. But once you are claiming condemnation for those who do consume alcohol it becomes relevant, because condemnation is a theological and thus a scriptural issue.


No. I hold a scientific view on the ingredient alcohol, which is a well-known and long-studied chemical compound currently destroying Western civilization because of false and dangerous doctrines like the one you are promoting.

Promoting a realistic view on alcohol which focuses on respecting its intoxicating effects are far better than prohibiting it. There have been quite a few attempts at doing so, the only thing accomplished by that dangerous home brewing of strong spirits and forcing the entire business of alcohol into the criminal world.
You make me sound like a binge drinker who says that a bottle of whisky a day will do no harm. That is not what I am saying. I have maybe the equivelant of one glass of wine or beer a month.



Using a dictionary does NOT make you any kind of expert, as this proves:



This is a legitimate listing for the dictionary, but it has no authority at all, except to point to the fact that MODERN translations, in this case even those of the Reformation such as the King James and Douay/Rheims, have offered this INTERPRETATION of the underlying Greek, which is in fact WRONG.

There is no earlier support for such a rendering or translation. The first translation of "Pharmakeia" as "sorcery" was done around 1550 A.D., at a time when Europe was buried in superstition and ignorance, and they burnt women at the stake as witches.

Do you even know what Bibleworks is? It is probably the dominating exegetical tool used by Bible academics all over the world. The dictionaries in that program is a serious one, the program has about 50 different translations of the Bible + both Hebrew and Greek (multiple Greek manuscripts) texts. The translations in the dictionary and word analysis of Bibleworks has nothing to do with the reformation.
When the dictionary lists "Usage" it is the probable meaning given the historical and social context of the text.



You admit that the primary meaning (#1) of your dictionary gives DRUG DEALING, but then you claim that the "authors", in this case presumably the NT writers meant "sorcery".

You have no evidence for this whatsoever. Your claim is an empty tissue, unsupported by any historical evidence predating Martin Luther and his ignorant followers.

The primary meaning and the usage in a given context do not need to be the same. The way the dictionary works is giving the context usage under "Usage", meanings is simply a list of what the word CAN mean.





Matthew was the last gospel written, by committee in an attempt to unite Jewish and Gentile Christians, and heal over the controversy and rift between them, by blending and harmonizing the teaching of Paul and Luke/Acts with that of James and Peter.

That is why there are about a dozen insertions from the Letter of James into the Sermon on the Mount, which was taken from Luke originally, and has had the whole 'social gospel' aspect of the speech conveniently removed for rich people.

Enjoy Matthew. I'll stick with Luke, which is more authentic.

No serious Bible scholar would place Matthew after John. Matthew is gospel probably originating from a didache following Christian community. It was written pretty much at the same time as Luke.

To claim that Sermon of the mount was taken from Luke is not something you can claim without providing some very impressive arguments. The dominating hypothesis on synoptic relations in the academic world is still the the two source hypothesis which provides Mark/Q as sources for Luke and Matthew and Matthew and Luke have nothing to do with each other.

That being said, I do not understand why you think I prefer Matthew? Because I listed one verse? I actually prefer Luke myself, it is the one I like the most and it is also the one I studied the most in an academic setting.

Tyrathca
September 1st, 2009, 07:10 PM
If you want to debate the pros and cons of modern medicine (quackery) start another thread, and get out of this one. You brought it up and I responded to that post. If you don't want to talk about this then don't say things like this.... (underline mine for emphasis)
We are here to talk about DRUG DEALERS and their fate, whether illegal, such as those who run cocaine (namely the CIA and cartels) or those who run heroin (namely the American Govt. in Afganistan), or, LEGAL drug dealers, such as the major German pharmaceutical companies, who have murdered millions. So long as you keep making claims about the pros and cons of modern medicine I will keep responding to them. Don't like it? Tough. Stop making stupid claims for me to refute and you wont have a problem.


If you want to debate the effectiveness of vaccines, versus the irrepairable harm they do, again, start a new thread. I have no doubt at all that those who violently promote (force) vaccinations upon an unwilling and ignorant populace are indeed going to hell. Again you are the one who brought up the cons of vaccines so I fail to see why I should be to blame for thread derailing when I merely criticise these comments. Either stick to purely biblical claims or put up with me disputing your scientific claims.
I also have no doubt that a large number of greedy materialistic doctors who perform needless operations and prescribe poisonous drugs will also be going to hell.

But that is another thread for another day. And you have basically accussed me of being (or going to be) a dishonest doctor in a previous post, so again don't blame me for taking offence and responding.



It's quite simple really, don't bring up the topic and I won't either. But so long as you derail your own thread with baseless claims about the scientific merit and safety about medicine and vaccines I'll keep rebutting you and help the derailment along. Stick to the bible only and I'll lose interest.

Tyrathca
September 1st, 2009, 07:16 PM
You can always repent, and be willing to humbly learn something new.

Perhaps you can avoid hell. Ezekiel taught that as long as a man was still breathing, there was hope in repentance.

peace
Nazaroo In your opinion would repentance require him to stop providing those drugs? Wouldn't that break the commandment "thou shalt not kill"?

Nazaroo
September 1st, 2009, 07:37 PM
In your opinion would repentance require him to stop providing those drugs? Wouldn't that break the commandment "thou shalt not kill"?

Any doctor whose prognosis is a lifetime of insulin shots is a quack.

The reason is simple. Insulin is required to break down double-sugars. If you don't have them in your diet, you don't need insulin.

Follow the Biblical food laws, and avoid gluttony, and you won't get diabetes or obesity as symptoms (just desserts).


peace
Nazaroo

Tyrathca
September 1st, 2009, 08:11 PM
Any doctor whose prognosis is a lifetime of insulin shots is a quack.

The reason is simple. Insulin is required to break down double-sugars. If you don't have them in your diet, you don't need insulin. LOL! Your such an idiot... You have no idea what insulin is for. Insulin is a hormone whose main function is to trigger cells to draw in glucose from the blood. Without it blood glucose elevates dramatically, cells are starved and the liver thinks glucose is low so releases its stores. In type 1 diabetes this results in:

Osmotic diuresis due to leakage of glucose into urine - basically they pee a lot and thus lose lots of fluid and electrolytes resulting in profound dehydration.
The liver also releases fatty acids and ketones which can be used for energy in the absence of intracellular glucose, the problenm being that ketones are acidic thus profound insulin insufficiency will result in a diabetic ketoacidosis (my cousin had this, near death before the insulin, saline and potassium infusion saved his life).
Many other complications not worth mentioning at the moment

Are you sure you aren't confusing insulin with amylase? This is a digestive enzyme realsed by both the pancreas and the parotids and whose main function is to break down polysaccharides. Insulin is not a digestive enzyme and is a a vital component of the regulation of multiple metabolic pathways.

Follow the Biblical food laws, and avoid gluttony, and you won't get diabetes or obesity as symptoms (just desserts). Again your such an idiot..... I've told you this already and you can confirm it with a quick search of your own. Not all diabetes is due to diet. Type 2 is and type 1 is not. If my cousin had followed your biblical laws concerning food he would have still got diabetes. Sure eating healthy is good for you and will help avoid type 2 diabetes and obesity but it does not remove the need for treatment of type 1 diabetics.




So I guess the answer is yes, for people giving their children insulin for T1DM to get redemption (according to you) they should kill their child by withholding their vital mediciation. Even though there is a commandment which says thou shalt not kill.

Nazaroo
September 2nd, 2009, 06:05 AM
Not all diabetes is due to diet.

And whatever is not due to diet is caused by criminal neglegence. Which means those responsible are going to hell. That includes everyone from German drug companies to Coca-Cola Ltd. and the drug pushers too.


I don't buy into your medical theories for two reasons:

(1) Medicine is in too primitive a condition, and people are dishonest and stupid.

(2) Doctors are bought and controlled by the big pharmaceutical companies.




"Come here, and I will show you the Judgement of the Great Whore, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication:...Babylon the Great, Mother of Whores:...And I saw the 'woman' drunken with the blood of the martyrs and witnesses of Jesus. And the 'woman' you saw is that huge city, which reigns over the kings of the earth (Vatican, Jerusalem, Switzerland, your choice)...for all nations have drunk of the wine (again a very negative connotation for 'wine') of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth waxed rich by her...

Here plagues will come in a single day, Black Death, mourning, famine; she shall be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord who judges her. And the kings of the earth shall wail and lament when they see her burning. ...the merchants of the earth shall stand far off in fear.
Rejoice holy apostles, for God as avenged you upon her.
...for by her DRUG DEALING were ALL NATIONS deceived. (Rev. 18:23)
And in her was found the blood of prophets and holy ones, and all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev. 17-18)

Drug dealers are going to hell, and it doesn't matter whether they have granted themselves licences or perverted justice to make their dealings "legal" in 100 countries. They are criminals, and Jesus on the Throne of Judgement isn't going to give a rat's *** about their paperwork, or lying excuses.

They will burn in the Lake of Fire as surely as the people they murdered have died unjustly.

Tyrathca
September 2nd, 2009, 06:49 AM
And whatever is not due to diet is caused by criminal neglegence. Which means those responsible are going to hell. That includes everyone from German drug companies to Coca-Cola Ltd. and the drug pushers too. It sounds like you are blaming corporations for type 1 diabetes, could you please explain exactly HOW these corporations caused this disease? Remembering that most T1DM patients are young and previously healthy who have had little if any medication and that no link between it and vaccines (neither epidemiological or chronological link) has been detected by studies. You can't just claim this as truth and not back it up, a scientist who makes a claim would have to show the research and if you want to prove them wrong you need to match or better that standard.

I don't buy into your medical theories for two reasons:

(1) Medicine is in too primitive a condition, and people are dishonest and stupid. In some areas yes, the body is extremely complex and there are many things we do not fully understand. However generally we are aware of this lack of understanding. That we do not understand everything is also NOT an indicator that we know nothing. Type 1 diabetes is fairly cut and dry obvious that it is due to insulin insufficiency due to islet cell destruction. THe research has identified the hormone insulin long ago, we have since identified which cells produce the hormone and that these cells are decline and then disapear in patients with T1DM, we also know that this disappearance is associated with invasion of the tissue with immune cells. We also know that a patient will DIE without insulin but will survive with it. The research is definitive on this condition, all we lack is what triggers of the immune response in the first place but even that we know some of what isn't involved and some of what is.

No body in medicine claims that we know everything. But generally we know what we know and we know what we don't know. You on the other hand know nothing, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT DIABETES IS!!!! Yet you have the gall to say you know what causes it? You'd win a nobel prize if you could prove it, no joke.

(2) Doctors are bought and controlled by the big pharmaceutical companies. You obviously haven't met many doctors. Most hate drug representative (too many are dumb, annoying, deceptive, manipulative parasites. A few are nice people tho). Doctors also rarely receive funds directly from pharma and if a doctor does receive such funding and does research they have to disclose this "conflict of interest" or else they can have their entire studies credibility destroyed.

Are you also claiming I have been bought and controlled by the big pharma conspiracy? I've not only learnt this stuff i've SEEN it, i've seen patients recover from the brink of death (barely maintaining conciousness, blood turning acidic, massively hypovolemic) and then seen them recover and return to health with insulin. I've SEEN numerous other conditions cured too. And I've seen patients die because no one knows what to do to save them, because we know where the limits of medicine are.

You on the other hand have seen NOTHING, have read NONE of the research and have learnt NONE of the anatomy or physiology of the human body. You know NOTHING about diabetes or any other condition I suspect. You know NOTHING about doctors, or scientists or the standards of research. Yet you claim to know everything. This is pure arrogance. Your thoughts even appear to be bordering on persecutory delusions.

TomO
September 2nd, 2009, 07:17 AM
You on the other hand have seen NOTHING, have read NONE of the research and have learnt NONE of the anatomy or physiology of the human body. You know NOTHING about diabetes or any other condition I suspect. You know NOTHING about doctors, or scientists or the standards of research. Yet you claim to know everything. This is pure arrogance. Your thoughts even appear to be bordering on persecutory delusions.

^^^^
:Plain: Nazaroo....I make some jokes & poke fun but this is the truth: Any Lunkhead Gymrat Bodybuilder knows more about human physiology than you do.....your understanding of insulin shows that you have done absolutely no research into these matters at all.

BTW...Bodybuilders are not known for their appreciation of Doctors & the Medical community....and likewise I have my issues with the Institutions you decry....but your ignorance is just too glaring :nono:

Granite
September 2nd, 2009, 11:32 AM
Let's also remember plenty of doctors prefer to use or recommend holistic remedies (such as the one I go to) and they detest big pharma.

Nazaroo's really gone off the deep end. I'm curious as to why. If someone close to him was hurt or let down by big medicine, my sympathies...but something about this strikes me as too pathological to be anything less than personal.

Either that or the guy's simply crazy.

Nazaroo
September 2nd, 2009, 06:08 PM
Let's also remember plenty of doctors prefer to use or recommend holistic remedies (such as the one I go to) and they detest big pharma.


I'd class your friend then as a rare honest doctor.




Nazaroo's really gone off the deep end. I'm curious as to why. If someone close to him was hurt or let down by big medicine, my sympathies...but something about this strikes me as too pathological to be anything less than personal.

Its personal every time I see a teen that has been sucked in by a propaganda engine so entrenched into this culture, so diabolical, so contrived as to claim authority in opposition to parents, so plainly engineered and maintained for the express purpose of luring underage girls into prostitution, and to lure boys into drugs and porn and crime for the farming of any and all disposable income via parents and governments, that it is virtually impossible to compete with said attractions or deter or divert the teens in any way from a self-destructive course that will leave them permanently stupid, impoverished, or dead.

Try examining these photos openly posted by teens of themselves on Facebook:

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad253/Nazaroo/males-Jan2009-ScottsParty.jpg

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad253/Nazaroo/males-Jan2009-ScottsParty2.jpg

Most of these kids are under 18, and some are as young as 16.

Older dealers connected to organized crime, recruiters who are practicing prostitutes, are the people actively and aggressively going into high-schools with the cooperation of teachers who are paid off by and working in tandem with the mafia and bikers.

Tyrathca
September 2nd, 2009, 07:52 PM
I'd class your friend then as a rare honest doctor. How many doctors do you know? I'm not going to be a doctor any time soon but do you think I'm dishonest and if so why?

Older dealers connected to organized crime, recruiters who are practicing prostitutes, are the people actively and aggressively going into high-schools with the cooperation of teachers who are paid off by and working in tandem with the mafia and bikers. OK he really has gone of the deep end...
What has this got to do with medicine? Do you actually have any kids because this never happened in my school and there is no way this could occur without parents accidentally finding out. Plus you are claiming this happens all across the 1st world, not just the little old USA, so that is a massive organised conspiracy you're claiming.

Nazaroo
September 2nd, 2009, 07:53 PM
Alcohol is healthy? I've made no such claim.

But drinking alcohol in a responsible manner is not very dangerous.

Alcohol in drinks do serve a purpose though, the taste of wine and beer are largely determined by alcohol, in that way it serves as an aromatic compound.



I'd say this concession gives me the essential "win" in the argument over alcohol.

You've denied that alcohol has any nutritional or biological value. Excellent, and honest.

Yet you cling to some kind of cultural tradition (of men) or hedonistic baggage, i.e., the "responsible" use of alcoholic beverages.

By this I presume you mean either "drinking in moderation" or its 'ritual use' in a Bread & "Oinos" ('wine'?) ceremony instituted allegedly by Jesus at the Last Supper.



In response to this, I make the following points:


__________________________________________________

(1) RE: "Drinking in Moderation" -

The New Testament (Paul, Peter, etc.) states "Be Sober!" nearly THIRTY TIMES, in about a half-dozen expressions and suggestions, and implications. To these exhortations, most North American Christians of every denomination respond by interpreting the instruction, plea, strong suggestion, abjuration, as:
"Drink moderately; Drink responsibly."
Imagine if you will, if we were to interpret other similar pleas and instructions the same way:
The New Testament instructs us to:
"Flee Fornication! Avoid Sexual Immorality!"some 20 or 25 times. On the same logical basis we could interpret this as
"Fornicate moderately: Practice 'Safe Sex'.
Wear a condom. Get clear consent first.
Tell your partner you have herpes or tested positive for AIDS."
Most Christians (even moderately drinking ones) probably have a problem with this hermeneutic and exegesis.

______________________________________________

(2) Ritual Use in Eucharistic Celebrations: Since your argument is 'responsible use', i.e., in quantities that are moderate and symbolic, i.e., as a small 'taste', or act of obediance/participation in Christian community, not gluttony or drunkeness, we can assume that the following would be acceptable on technical aspects:



"But using [insert drug of choice here] in a responsible manner is not very dangerous."
I start a club/religion/sect/organization which has a participatory symbolic ritual: We use small quantities of COCAINE, mixed with Meth-Amphetamine, mixed in a little grape-juice 'shooter'. It symbolizes our membership and participation in our religious organization. We do so openly, explaining that we never use more than 5 milligrams of cocaine, or 2 milligrams of 'meth' per person, we don't let outsiders participate, and we always advise our members to be 'modest', and sensible about consumption of our special symbolic "brew". In our country (or wherever), we satisfy the authorities that we always store our cocaine and meth in safe containers, that we practice good hygene, and that we don't let children get access to our storehouses of drugs.

What sort of message do you think this would carry to all outsiders in the communities where we live? What example or instructional value does this give to curious children? How will those who oppose us and critique our cultural and ritual practice interpret our "harmless" tradition?

What would Paul think of our innovation regarding a "Last Supper" style ritual for our group? Oh wait, I know; he already spoke to this issue, didn't he?
"...therefore, if something I do were to make my brother to fall into sin, I will not do it while the world is standing, lest I make my brother stumble and sin." (1st Cor. 8:13)
_____________________________________________

The obvious question then comes to mind.

Many mainstream Christian groups, even large denominations, have come to understand that the New Testament recommends abstinence, not "moderation", with both alcohol, and sex, because this impedes the Gospel the least, when such abstinence is done in the right Spirit of charity and concern for weaker brothers, sisters, neighbours, and children.

Is it not likely, even very obvious, that something has gone terribly wrong in modern hermeneutics and exegesis, when either (a) hypocrisy is created in the selective interpretation of 'freedoms'? or (b) other formerly clear teachings become so significantly weakened (e.g. the position on fornication), that almost any behaviour is accepted?

Finally: What damage is done to the authority of the Bible, especially the New Testament, when churches can RE-define 'normal' and acceptable ethical behaviour over and above the teaching found in the NT itself? Isn't there a 'consistency' requirement for any NEW revelations or innovations? A backwards-compatibility if you will, for modern Christian doctrine and practice?

Or do we open the Bottomless Pit and let out every variation of behaviour that would formerly have been identified as "sin"?

We have in fact already seen this in some denominations today, with the approval of open homosexual relations, recreational alcohol and drug abuse, fornication and 'open-marriages', reckless selfishness and hedonism.

What will distinguish a "Christian" in the near future? Bingo gambling? Building-maintenance funds?

peace
Nazaroo

Aner
September 3rd, 2009, 06:58 AM
Naz -

Scripture is replete with admonitions to drink alcohol - Be Sober is a general command and it means DON'T GET BLASTED!! I am totally sober after having up to probably 4 beers/3 or 4 glasses of wine in an hour with a small amount of food. Each person simply has to know their limits.

I appreciate your heart for serving the Lord - since I know that is your sincere desire - however, you are laying on a command that simply is not from above and that God does not require.

I might point out one of my favorite texts in Deut 14:26

"and thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee; and thou shalt eat there before Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household. "

All right - I am off to sip some 18y Highland Park...

Father, thank-you for the creation that you have given us!

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving:


Best,
Aner

koban
September 3rd, 2009, 07:44 AM
Jesus drank wine. That's good enough for me.



Matthew 11:19The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.


And Paul apparently disagreed with you regarding the usefulness of alcohol. Do you think he was wrong?


1 Timothy 5:23Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

TomO
September 3rd, 2009, 08:01 AM
Jesus drank wine. That's good enough for me.





And Paul apparently disagreed with you regarding the usefulness of alcohol. Do you think he was wrong?


Right....like we can trust you. You work for the Mafia and the Bikers. :Plain:

Granite
September 3rd, 2009, 08:03 AM
I'd class your friend then as a rare honest doctor.


Its personal every time I see a teen that has been sucked in by a propaganda engine so entrenched into this culture, so diabolical, so contrived as to claim authority in opposition to parents, so plainly engineered and maintained for the express purpose of luring underage girls into prostitution, and to lure boys into drugs and porn and crime for the farming of any and all disposable income via parents and governments, that it is virtually impossible to compete with said attractions or deter or divert the teens in any way from a self-destructive course that will leave them permanently stupid, impoverished, or dead.

Try examining these photos openly posted by teens of themselves on Facebook:

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad253/Nazaroo/males-Jan2009-ScottsParty.jpg

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad253/Nazaroo/males-Jan2009-ScottsParty2.jpg

Most of these kids are under 18, and some are as young as 16.

Older dealers connected to organized crime, recruiters who are practicing prostitutes, are the people actively and aggressively going into high-schools with the cooperation of teachers who are paid off by and working in tandem with the mafia and bikers.

Very Henry Makow of you. Paranoid, in other words.

Do you troll Facebook looking for pictures of kids acting stupidly?

Nazaroo
September 3rd, 2009, 11:09 AM
Very Henry Makow of you. Paranoid, in other words.

Do you troll Facebook looking for pictures of kids acting stupidly?

Only after I've lost a son and a daughter to the drug culture/industry, and when I'm looking for evidence to involve the police in rescuing underage teens from the hands of fiends.

The losses parents suffer are not 'paranoia'. They are real lives of young persons who need help, and whose futures are being literally destroyed.

Sorry, there is no neutral position here.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 3rd, 2009, 11:25 AM
Naz -

Scripture is replete with admonitions to drink alcohol - Be Sober is a general command and it means DON'T GET BLASTED!! I am totally sober after having up to probably 4 beers/3 or 4 glasses of wine in an hour with a small amount of food. Each person simply has to know their limits.


Your response leaves me speechless. Not for want of a definitive answer, but because you are living proof of the corruption I have been talking about here.

Four beers is not drinking for the purpose of temperance or thirst. Its to get high. Dump the pretense, and have just one more beer, after all whose counting that precisely?




I appreciate your heart for serving the Lord - since I know that is your sincere desire -

however, you are laying on a command that simply is not from above and that God does not require.
Admitting the first part of this condemns your own excuse-making in the second part.




I might point out one of my favorite texts in Deut 14:26

"and thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee; and thou shalt eat there before Jehovah thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household. "

All right - I am off to sip some 18y Highland Park...

Father, thank-you for the creation that you have given us!

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving:


Best,
AnerDeuteronomy was (re)written by corrupt priests after the time of Samuel's sons. It was conveniently "found" by a priest rebuilding the temple after the Babylonian Captivity. These racists then dumped their Babylonian wives and children into the wilderness to fend for themselves, in spite of the Commandment of God, and the teaching of Christ:

"What God has joined together let no person separate!"
What Ezra and Nehemiah did was a worse sin than the first, that of intermarrying with other peoples. The solution for infidelity to the LORD is not racism, its a Saviour, Redeemer and teacher of Truth.


for whatsoever thy soul desireth,...or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee; Does this include table-dances, as well as hard liquor? Why not toot a little cocaine off some hooker's behind, or get some oral action under the desk of the Oval Office while we are at it? That's not technically "sex" according to a president of the USA.

If hard liquor is counted as fair game, how do we determine just what ISN'T allowed?

Do you seriously expect to apply this dubious translation of an OLD TESTAMENT 'scripture' to the Christian Era in the very LAST DAYS, when the Church is in tribulation, and the earth is about to be destroyed?

I guess there's still time for some porn movies, according to your timetable of events.
Lets go to DisneyWorld too, and stop by Vegas for some all-night gambling of whatever cash the Lord has entrusted you with.

Maybe after that, you can return to the Father as a repentant prodigal son.

peace,
Nazaroo

Granite
September 3rd, 2009, 11:44 AM
Only after I've lost a son and a daughter to the drug culture/industry, and when I'm looking for evidence to involve the police in rescuing underage teens from the hands of fiends.

The losses parents suffer are not 'paranoia'. They are real lives of young persons who need help, and whose futures are being literally destroyed.

Sorry, there is no neutral position here.

peace
Nazaroo

I see. Well, as I said yesterday and suspected, this is a personal issue for you, making it next to impossible for you to be reasonable or objective. This makes sense.

Nazaroo, a few points to make here. First of all, I'm very sorry for your loss.

Second, it is quite possible to drink in moderation. That your children did not exercise moderation or self-control is tragic, but it does not justify your new approach to the matter (although your attitude isn't surprising, all things considered).

Third, going completely off the deep end and ranting about how folks are going to hell would be pathetic if it didn't come from the tremendous pain you're feeling. That said, your anger is misplaced and totally misdirected. No one on TOL contributed to your loss. No one on TOL is guilty of any involvement in your situation. Spewing hatred at them will never make you feel better (to say nothing of the fact that your doctrine is completely warped and almost appears to be willfully ugly and vicious as possible).

Fourth, what you're doing online could be badly misconstrued, and I suspect you have already encountered futility on this mission of yours, and will continue to do so. Stop wasting your time. Tend to yourself, and to your own house.

You're obviously hurting and I am extremely sorry for that, but none of what you're doing appears to be helping you or providing you what you need.

Please look after yourself.

Nazaroo
September 3rd, 2009, 01:37 PM
I see. Well, as I said yesterday and suspected, this is a personal issue for you, making it next to impossible for you to be reasonable or objective. This makes sense.

Nazaroo, a few points to make here. First of all, I'm very sorry for your loss.


Sometimes personal loss helps a person make a reliable commitment to an important truth.

Thanks for your sympathy.

However, a few points of my own will show that your interpretation of events is misplaced:

(1) My children were not victims of the pharmaceutical industry, except perhaps indirectly, since it is run by Nazis and so is the illegal drug industry. Just check the tattoos on any biker.

(2) I have held the same view of both the pharmaceutical industry, and also about drinking, for over 35 years, the approximate length of time that I have been a Nazarite. (see Numbers ch.6).

(3) A check of my postings on drugs and drinking for the last 20 years on the internet will show the exact same beliefs, doctrines and enthusiasm that I have shown in this thread. My current circumstances have not affected my convictions in the least, except to galvanize them, if they weren't already galvanized by 35 years of practicing Nazarite Law, and reading reports of pharmaceutical industry corruption and tragedy.

(4) My 'fanatical' position has been constant for as long as I have been a Christian.

(5) My belief in the current extent and depth of corruption and involvement of organized crime in high-schools has only been confirmed by recent news reports, and not my family experience.

(6) I have believed unrepentant criminals are going to hell ever since I abandoned universalism as incompatible with Holy Scripture, about 20 years ago.








Second, it is quite possible to drink in moderation. That your children did not exercise moderation or self-control is tragic, but it does not justify your new approach to the matter (although your attitude isn't surprising, all things considered).


I don't doubt that it is possible for some people, who are not susceptible to binge-drinking, loss of self-control, and emotional/psychological weaknesses to drink moderately and 'semi-responsibly', at least temporarily, even for what seem like extended periods. But when such people do succumb to temptation and circumstance, they are as sick and dangerous as any weaker person.

I have no "new" approach to the matter. Regarding drinking, I am the same yesterday, today and tommorrow.

For what its worth, my attitudes about drugs and drinking stem from events in the distant past, since most of my childhood and school friends are dead: they died between the ages of about 15 to 25, almost always because of drinking and drugs, directly or indirectly. This fact of history hardened my stand against drugs and drinking many many years ago.

I see no reason or evidence which would persuade me to re-evaluate my position.



Third, going completely off the deep end and ranting about how folks are going to hell would be pathetic if it didn't come from the tremendous pain you're feeling. That said, your anger is misplaced and totally misdirected. No one on TOL contributed to your loss. No one on TOL is guilty of any involvement in your situation.


No one says they did, and no one says they didn't.

Who knows what crimes and misdemeanors TOL patrons are guilty of. If not with my children, perhaps with others. Perhaps not. That is not my concern unless the Lord puts me in a position of knowledge and power to judge them for their crimes.

I hold no anger toward TOL readers, since I know not who any of them are. Your accusation is what is actually misplaced.





Spewing hatred at them will never make you feel better (to say nothing of the fact that your doctrine is completely warped and almost appears to be willfully ugly and vicious as possible).


This coming from a professed atheist/agnostic/anti-Christian. Perhaps this is then a compliment.

Your opinion is noted and respected as an intentional expression given by an advertised advocate of alternative doctrines.



Fourth, what you're doing online could be badly misconstrued, and I suspect you have already encountered futility on this mission of yours, and will continue to do so. Stop wasting your time. Tend to yourself, and to your own house.

You're obviously hurting and I am extremely sorry for that, but none of what you're doing appears to be helping you or providing you what you need.

Please look after yourself.

Thanks for your sentiments and friendly concern.

However, its not about "winning". Its about what is true, and what is right, and the consequences must come second. I will accept the consequences for my doctrinal teaching.

I am ready to face Jesus as Judge over this issue, and am confident that I will be found sincere, and for the most part correct, even if off on a few details.

peace
Nazaroo

Granite
September 3rd, 2009, 01:41 PM
Word to the wise: never give a Christian excuse to brag.

Lesson learned.

Naz, I'll respond in detail later, but arrogance doesn't become you. Off your high horse, buddy, how 'bout you join the rest of we little people.

Tyrathca
September 3rd, 2009, 05:48 PM
(1) My children were not victims of the pharmaceutical industry, except perhaps indirectly, since it is run by Nazis and so is the illegal drug industry. Just check the tattoos on any biker. Could you explain further what these tattoos show and how this relates to nazis and billion dollar multinational pharmaceutical companies?


(5) My belief in the current extent and depth of corruption and involvement of organized crime in high-schools has only been confirmed by recent news reports, and not my family experience. What news reports would these be? What are they saying? Do they give any special messages to you? Are you sure you aren't reading to much into it? How do you know these news reports are accurate if you have no direct experience?

A not to many years ago I was still in highschool and I can confidently say this was not occuring at my school (if they were they were doing a very bad job of it).


I don't doubt that it is possible for some people, who are not susceptible to binge-drinking, loss of self-control, and emotional/psychological weaknesses to drink moderately and 'semi-responsibly', at least temporarily, even for what seem like extended periods. But when such people do succumb to temptation and circumstance, they are as sick and dangerous as any weaker person. Then how come most people drink socially but most people are not alcoholics. Sure there are many who abuse alcohol but you are taking it to an unjustifiable extreme.

I hold no anger toward TOL readers, since I know not who any of them are. Your accusation is what is actually misplaced. Could have fooled me, I was under the impression you at least had a siginificant dislike of me seeing as you hoped I would be kicked out of my university course.

The Berean
September 3rd, 2009, 06:02 PM
Right....like we can trust you. You work for the Mafia and the Bikers. :Plain:
Tom, I thought the Mafia didn't exist? :idunno:



What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist.

Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself.

TomO
September 3rd, 2009, 07:42 PM
Tom, I thought the Mafia didn't exist? :idunno:

It doesn't. :Plain:


Did I say that the Mafia existed? :nono:


I think you are a bit confused about what has and has not been said. :think:


How 'bout you, me, and Pauly here go for a little ride and we'll get you.....straightened out. :Plain: :Clete:




:car:

Ktoyou
September 3rd, 2009, 08:00 PM
I'd say this concession gives me the essential "win" in the argument over alcohol.

You've denied that alcohol has any nutritional or biological value. Excellent, and honest.

Yet you cling to some kind of cultural tradition (of men) or hedonistic baggage, i.e., the "responsible" use of alcoholic beverages.

By this I presume you mean either "drinking in moderation" or its 'ritual use' in a Bread & "Oinos" ('wine'?) ceremony instituted allegedly by Jesus at the Last Supper.



In response to this, I make the following points:


__________________________________________________

(1) RE: "Drinking in Moderation" -

The New Testament (Paul, Peter, etc.) states "Be Sober!" nearly THIRTY TIMES, in about a half-dozen expressions and suggestions, and implications. To these exhortations, most North American Christians of every denomination respond by interpreting the instruction, plea, strong suggestion, abjuration, as:
"Drink moderately; Drink responsibly."
Imagine if you will, if we were to interpret other similar pleas and instructions the same way:
The New Testament instructs us to:
"Flee Fornication! Avoid Sexual Immorality!"some 20 or 25 times. On the same logical basis we could interpret this as
"Fornicate moderately: Practice 'Safe Sex'.
Wear a condom. Get clear consent first.
Tell your partner you have herpes or tested positive for AIDS."
Most Christians (even moderately drinking ones) probably have a problem with this hermeneutic and exegesis.

______________________________________________

(2) Ritual Use in Eucharistic Celebrations: Since your argument is 'responsible use', i.e., in quantities that are moderate and symbolic, i.e., as a small 'taste', or act of obediance/participation in Christian community, not gluttony or drunkeness, we can assume that the following would be acceptable on technical aspects:

I start a club/religion/sect/organization which has a participatory symbolic ritual: We use small quantities of COCAINE, mixed with Meth-Amphetamine, mixed in a little grape-juice 'shooter'. It symbolizes our membership and participation in our religious organization. We do so openly, explaining that we never use more than 5 milligrams of cocaine, or 2 milligrams of 'meth' per person, we don't let outsiders participate, and we always advise our members to be 'modest', and sensible about consumption of our special symbolic "brew". In our country (or wherever), we satisfy the authorities that we always store our cocaine and meth in safe containers, that we practice good hygene, and that we don't let children get access to our storehouses of drugs.

What sort of message do you think this would carry to all outsiders in the communities where we live? What example or instructional value does this give to curious children? How will those who oppose us and critique our cultural and ritual practice interpret our "harmless" tradition?

What would Paul think of our innovation regarding a "Last Supper" style ritual for our group? Oh wait, I know; he already spoke to this issue, didn't he?
"...therefore, if something I do were to make my brother to fall into sin, I will not do it while the world is standing, lest I make my brother stumble and sin." (1st Cor. 8:13)
_____________________________________________

The obvious question then comes to mind.

Many mainstream Christian groups, even large denominations, have come to understand that the New Testament recommends abstinence, not "moderation", with both alcohol, and sex, because this impedes the Gospel the least, when such abstinence is done in the right Spirit of charity and concern for weaker brothers, sisters, neighbours, and children.

Is it not likely, even very obvious, that something has gone terribly wrong in modern hermeneutics and exegesis, when either (a) hypocrisy is created in the selective interpretation of 'freedoms'? or (b) other formerly clear teachings become so significantly weakened (e.g. the position on fornication), that almost any behaviour is accepted?

Finally: What damage is done to the authority of the Bible, especially the New Testament, when churches can RE-define 'normal' and acceptable ethical behaviour over and above the teaching found in the NT itself? Isn't there a 'consistency' requirement for any NEW revelations or innovations? A backwards-compatibility if you will, for modern Christian doctrine and practice?

Or do we open the Bottomless Pit and let out every variation of behaviour that would formerly have been identified as "sin"?

We have in fact already seen this in some denominations today, with the approval of open homosexual relations, recreational alcohol and drug abuse, fornication and 'open-marriages', reckless selfishness and hedonism.

What will distinguish a "Christian" in the near future? Bingo gambling? Building-maintenance funds?

peace
Nazaroo

I think you are running off a bridge at full speed. How is that for saying what I mean without using any Latin?

Drinking in moderation is not the same as being drunk.

One cannot fornicate in moderation.

Man made morality is not the answer!

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 02:59 AM
Could you explain further what these tattoos show and how this relates to nazis and billion dollar multinational pharmaceutical companies?


Sure. When the Nazis "lost" the war, about 50,000 of them immigrated to Canada where I live, and took all the skilled jobs, because our people were more concerned with getting their hands on German technology than preserving Christian morality.

The only boatload of Jews to show up on Canada's doorstep was turned away, consigning those aboard to horrible deaths.

German drug companies recently re-issued Thalidomide in third-world countries where they can control the laws, and make more dishonest profits and experiments on human beings.

'nuff said.




A not to many years ago I was still in highschool and I can confidently say this was not occuring at my school (if they were they were doing a very bad job of it).

Lucky you.

How does your lack of concern help others in entirely different circumstances?



Then how come most people drink socially but most people are not alcoholics. Sure there are many who abuse alcohol but you are taking it to an unjustifiable extreme.


Every first time hit-and-run drunk driver explains away his case as an 'isolated incident', not his normal behaviour.

Put another way, every repeat-offender had a first time he never learned from.




Could have fooled me, I was under the impression you at least had a siginificant dislike of me seeing as you hoped I would be kicked out of my university course.

Its you who are reading too much into things.

I would prefer you did the honest thing, and quit your university course, and refused to join the 'educated elite' for maximum profit, and instead found honest employment.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 03:14 AM
I think you are running off a bridge at full speed. How is that for saying what I mean without using any Latin?

Drinking in moderation is not the same as being drunk.


Exactly.
And drinking in moderation is not the same as being sober, either.




One cannot fornicate in moderation.


Precisely.

And one cannot "be sober" in moderation, anymore than one can be "a little bit pregnant".

If you doubt the requirements regarding alcohol for holiness, consult Numbers 6:


'He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no fermentation of wine, or fermentation of strong drink;

Neither shall he drink any grape drink, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing grows from the vine, from the seeds even to the skin.' (Numbers 6:3-4)
The 'not so much as a grape-seed' rule is worded this way for an important reason:

To prevent exactly the kind of watering-down of the message that has now occurred in North American Churches who don't bother to read the O.T. details on vows of sobriety.

As Alcoholics Anonymous and many others have found out, only ABSTINENCE can keep a man sober who has had previous problems with alcohol or any addictive drug.

And alcohol is an addictive drug. - The biggest problem drug in North America.

Tyrathca
September 4th, 2009, 04:43 AM
Sure. When the Nazis "lost" the war, about 50,000 of them immigrated to Canada where I live, and took all the skilled jobs, because our people were more concerned with getting their hands on German technology than preserving Christian morality. Sorry but you'll have to clarify. 50,000 Nazi's or 50,000 Germans? And how did they take all the skilled jobs, you population would have been lower but not that low would it?


German drug companies recently re-issued Thalidomide in third-world countries where they can control the laws, and make more dishonest profits and experiments on human beings. I don't see how this at all follows from the first statement or relates at ALL to my question. I also beleive that thalidomide has been re-issued in 1st world countries for use in very restricted setting (i.e. to avoid use in unknowingly pregnant women). The reason for its re-issue is I THINK (this is all of the top of my head) that it is used in some cancers, I am fairly confident that whatever use it is for it is related to taking advantage of the reason it is so teratogenic in pregnancy.

But what does this have to do with a nazi biker conspiracy theory? And why are all the evil pharmaceutical companies german, are the non-german ones good?


How does your lack of concern help others in entirely different circumstances? It helps them realise that there isn't a global conspiracy theory like you claim. SOme schools are ****, many schools have drug problems, but these problems aren't due to the reasons you say.
Every first time hit-and-run drunk driver explains away his case as an 'isolated incident', not his normal behaviour.

Put another way, every repeat-offender had a first time he never learned from. How does this rebut my comment? You claimed that almost no one can avoid abusing alcohol, that moderation is impossible. Yet clearly this does not reflect the rates of alcohol use and dependance compared to acohol use.


I would prefer you did the honest thing, and quit your university course, and refused to join the 'educated elite' for maximum profit, and instead found honest employment. So instead you're calling me a dishonest money grubber, that is SOOOOO much better. And how is trying to save peoples lives dishonest? Seriously, if you'd been in med school you'd know there are easier and less stressful ways to make money.

Sealeaf
September 4th, 2009, 05:03 AM
All forms of diabetes are genetic in origen. Type 1 used to be called "juvenile onset diabetes". It involves a near total failure of the pancreas to produce insulin. Type 2 or "adult onset" diabetes occures when the pancreas can't produce enough insulin for the body's needs. Sometimes this is caused by obesity. There is too just much body and not enough pancreas. More often it is caused by the ageing process. Basicaly everyone will become diabetic if they live long enough. Just as some men lose their hair early and some late, some not at all, so type 2 diabetes occures related to aging but controled by genetics.

The point of this is that there is no evidence that diabetes can be "caused" by poor diet, except in the case of diabetes related to obesity. Even that is complicated by the fact that a primary sympton of diabets is increased appetite. Eating sugar will not cause diabetes. Developing a habit of consuming large amounts of sugar will make it hard to live on a diabetic diet when and if you need to, but there is no evidence that it will cause the condition.

TomO
September 4th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Sure. When the Nazis "lost" the war, about 50,000 of them immigrated to Canada where I live, and took all the skilled jobs, because our people were more concerned with getting their hands on German technology than preserving Christian morality.


I would prefer you did the honest thing, and quit your university course, and refused to join the 'educated elite' for maximum profit, and instead found honest employment.





ITT: All Germans are Nazis and Education = Immorality. :Plain:

TomO
September 4th, 2009, 06:11 AM
All forms of diabetes are genetic in origen. Type 1 used to be called "juvenile onset diabetes". It involves a near total failure of the pancreas to produce insulin. Type 2 or "adult onset" diabetes occures when the pancreas can't produce enough insulin for the body's needs. Sometimes this is caused by obesity. There is too just much body and not enough pancreas. More often it is caused by the ageing process. Basicaly everyone will become diabetic if they live long enough. Just as some men lose their hair early and some late, some not at all, so type 2 diabetes occures related to aging but controled by genetics.

The point of this is that there is no evidence that diabetes can be "caused" by poor diet, except in the case of diabetes related to obesity. Even that is complicated by the fact that a primary sympton of diabets is increased appetite. Eating sugar will not cause diabetes. Developing a habit of consuming large amounts of sugar will make it hard to live on a diabetic diet when and if you need to, but there is no evidence that it will cause the condition.


Well...it has been shown that high carb diets and increased consumption of HF Corn Syrup may be a cause of increased Insulin Resistance......but then we've already established the Grocery Clerk is Hell-bound for pushing Caffeine and Trypotophan so I guess the point is moot. :idunno:

koban
September 4th, 2009, 06:36 AM
I just realized Naz was from Canada.

Explains a lot.

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 06:50 AM
ITT: All Gemans are Nazis and Education = Immorality. :Plain:

Success in the current educational system indicates quite clearly that:

(1) You've bought into their secular humanist philosophy bigtime, or

(2) You've lied and pretended to buy into their secular humanist philosophy.

Which is more dishonest? Impossible to measure.

In other words, you've allowed yourself to be marked down as pro-abortion, gay-friendly, anti-Christian, and that you know how to kiss arse and not ruffle feathers by working within the system to take your cut and affect very little social change that is not within the parameters spelled out by the educational heirarchy.

I'm sorry, but whats a Geman?

Is this what you mean?
http://www.kirupa.com/motiongraphics/images/final.jpg

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 06:55 AM
So instead you're calling me a dishonest money grubber, that is SOOOOO much better. ... Seriously, if you'd been in med school you'd know there are easier and less stressful ways to make money.

Interesting that your focus is still on making money...perhaps you'd make a good modern doctor after all.

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 06:57 AM
I just realized Naz was from Canada.

Explains a lot.


Look under your avatar:

Posts: 15,626

and they're all like this. Explains even more.

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 07:13 AM
All forms of diabetes are genetic in origen.


I don't care whether you can spell origin.

But you are just parrotting trivial inaccuracies about 'diabetes'.

From a practical standpoint, 90% of real cases of diabetes are actually related to eating garbage, heavy drinking, drug abuse, and accidental industrial poisoning.

Thats a clue that 90% of known cases of diabetes would be preventable if people had USEFUL information in their hands, had USEFUL instructions to follow, and had REASONABLE commitment to their own and others' wellbeing.

In other words, they got a Bible and did their best to understand and follow its advice.




The point of this is that there is no evidence that diabetes can be "caused" by poor diet, except in the case of diabetes related to obesity.


... cases related to obesity, which appear to be 60-90% of cases not related to alcoholisim.




Eating sugar will not cause diabetes. Developing a habit of consuming large amounts of sugar will make it hard to live on a diabetic diet when and if you need to, but there is no evidence that it will cause the condition.Its well known that the change of diet from natural foods found by hunting, fishing, and farming, to refined sugar, packaged and bleached-out, preserved commercial foods, essentially destroyed the entire Innuit/Eskimo community here in Canada.

They went from being strong healthy people with perfect teeth to sickly miserable people rife with the diseases of the White Man.

And this was no accident. The Europeans were following a planned and conscious policy to confuse, starve, exploit, drive out and kill all aboriginal peoples in Canada.

They began with handing out blankets covered in Small Pox virus, and selling hard liquor to them, to forced relocation on reservations, to institutionalization of all children and erasure of all Indian culture, and finally to pedophilic abuse in said "schools", along with an agressive drug pushing program in all the reservation-communities.

In short, racist genocide, using poisoned food, drugs, monstrous abuse, and imposed poverty.

Of course the exponential rise in cases of "diabetes" (falsely or accurately diagnosed) is all a mere coincidence, and unrelated to the ongoing race wars.

Do you have any land in Florida for sale?

edixon
September 4th, 2009, 07:41 AM
You can always repent, and be willing to humbly learn something new.

Perhaps you can avoid hell. Ezekiel taught that as long as a man was still breathing, there was hope in repentance.

peace
Nazaroo



Matthew 15:11


You seem to be a prime example of this scripture.


Nameste,
Ed

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 07:45 AM
Matthew 15:11


You seem to be a prime example of this scripture.


Nameste,
Ed

And for you I'd recommend:

1st Cor. 11:31 , Col. 2:16

peace
Nazaroo

edixon
September 4th, 2009, 08:00 AM
And for you I'd recommend:

1st Cor. 11:31 , Col. 2:16

peace
Nazaroo

I did not read past the post I quoted, but by that time I was sick of the nonsense. That scripture (Matt 15:11) just came to the top of my brain and I posted it.

Would you (or have you, I didn't read everything) comment on Matt 15:11 ?

This same thing is repeated in one of the other gospels also.

How say you? Is there something you can put in your mouth that will defile you, was Jesus wrong?

As regards the verses aimed at me. Judgment involves a sentence. The judge discerns the facts and pronounces sentence. We (as believers) must discern certain things. I pronounce no sentence on anyone. I was wrong and full of myself for 50 years, I think I turned out ok. The same is possible for anyone, no matter what they have done. No, I do not judge, but I do discern spirits.


Nameste,
Ed

Granite
September 4th, 2009, 08:35 AM
Success in the current educational system indicates quite clearly that:

(1) You've bought into their secular humanist philosophy bigtime, or

(2) You've lied and pretended to buy into their secular humanist philosophy.

Which is more dishonest? Impossible to measure.

In other words, you've allowed yourself to be marked down as pro-abortion, gay-friendly, anti-Christian, and that you know how to kiss arse and not ruffle feathers by working within the system to take your cut and affect very little social change that is not within the parameters spelled out by the educational heirarchy.

I'm sorry, but whats a Geman?

Is this what you mean?
http://www.kirupa.com/motiongraphics/images/final.jpg

You have serious issues for which you should seek some sincere help.

TomO
September 4th, 2009, 09:04 AM
Success in the current educational system indicates quite clearly that:

Define success. :think:


(1) You've bought into their secular humanist philosophy bigtime, or

Don't be silly :)


(2) You've lied and pretended to buy into their secular humanist philosophy.

Nope...not that either. :think:



Which is more dishonest? Impossible to measure.

:think: True....that would be impossible to measure. Kind of like trying to measure the dishonesty of presenting these as the only two options



In other words, you've allowed yourself to be marked down as pro-abortion, gay-friendly, anti-Christian, and that you know how to kiss arse and not ruffle feathers by working within the system to take your cut and affect very little social change that is not within the parameters spelled out by the educational heirarchy.

:) Perhaps if I was one of these passive types that may be true......but I have never been that.....but seeing as how I have only a High School Diploma I have never intended to go very far in the Educational heirarchy. I have, instead, worked my way tediously ever higher in what you would define as a "real job".

...but I digress:

:think: My mother, however, was a Teacher and Administrator in the New Jersey Public School System for 20+ years, and I don't recall her ever "kissing arse" etc...etc...

In short, just because you have a defeatist passive-aggressive demeanor does not mean that everybody does. :Plain:


I'm sorry, but whats a Geman?

A misspelling ;)


Is this what you mean?
http://www.kirupa.com/motiongraphics/images/final.jpg

Not exactly......are you by chance related to Lighthouse? :)

Nazaroo
September 4th, 2009, 04:37 PM
...

Would you comment on Matt 15:11 ?

How say you? Is there something you can put in your mouth that will defile you, was Jesus wrong?


Yes I will comment:

Jesus wasn't wrong, but modern translations, and modern doctrines ARE wrong.

(1) Matthew was the last gospel written, by church committee, with a clear purpose, that of harmonizing the conflicting factions (Jewish-Christian vs. Gentile/Pauline-Christian) within the Church. Luke (writing earlier) records the creative conflicts and the novel solutions of the Apostles, from the 'vision' of Peter to the Letter by James from the Jerusalem Council. Food Laws were a post-Jesus'-Ministry problem.

(2) Matthew here copies, edits and interprets Mark, and Mark's version is primitive, so Matthew is of little interest here.

(3) Mark's version has been edited/corrupted in the Alexandrian copying stream, and the corrupted reading has been adopted by almost all "modern" versions, based on the mutilated critical Greek text(s) of Westcott/Hort (1882), Nestle (1908), and UBS-2 (1965).

Here I will post a full account of the proper reading and interpretation of Mark's narrative:

------------------------------------------
The Problem with Mark 7:19


The Problem with this particular scripture is complicated by two layers of confusion.
The first concerns the Greek text.
While the Traditional (Majority/Received) Greek text of Mark reads as follows:
"...παν το εχωθεν εισπορευμενον εις τον ανθρωπον
ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται,
καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα."
The Hort/Nestle/UBS text however, reads καθαριζων, ('[he was] purifying'), thus ending the quotation after εκπορευεται, and setting off the last phrase as Mark's explanation in the narrative (rather than a continuation of Jesus' speech). This reading is only supported by three manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Vaticanus (B), and Alexandrinus (A), against the entire corpus of thousands of other MSS.
"...παν το εχωθεν εισπορευμενον εις τον ανθρωπον
ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται."
- καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.
What is the significance of the change? It represents a stage in the Romanization (Gentilizing) of the New Testament, in which early editors tried to remove the embarrassing "Jewish" elements and downplay the Jewish origins and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, in the process of making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.

We can see the significant impact of the alteration of a single letter in one word in the resulting translation:

The Traditional text reads:
"...everything from outside entering into the man
is not able to make him 'common';
because it doesn't enter into his heart,
but into the intestine,
and into the toilet passes,
purifying [the man] of all the foods..."
The Traditional text is straightforward, and simply states the obvious, that even if food temporarily enters a man, it also leaves again, restoring a man's purity (e.g. through fasting). There is no "magical" meaning attached to Jesus' words, nor is it needed, in order to make sense of the teaching.

The UBS text reads (and mistakenly translates):
"...everything from outside entering into the man
is not able to make him 'common';
because it doesn't enter into his heart,
but into the intestine,
and into the toilet passes."
- [he was ] purifying all foods...
Naturally, all 'modern' versions, based on these 4th century Roman heavily edited ecclesiastical texts make Mark say in the narrative that Jesus had "declared all foods clean".

But this not only rests on shakey textual ground, but it rests also on a super-imposed meaning based on Roman Catholic popular teaching.

When we look at the complete context, the correct reading is obvious:
(1) Jesus lived as a law-abiding Jew during His public ministry.

(2) Had Jesus and His disciples been actually breaking the Jewish Food Laws, the Pharisees would hardly have quibbled about hand-washing, but would have accused Him (as they later did over the Sabbath) of breaking with Jewish Law (Torah).
But the worst the Pharisees can observe is that some of Jesus' disciples forgot to wash their hands.

(3) Had Jesus taught that "all foods were clean" during His public ministry, all the Apostles would have long known of it, and Peter would have no need of any "vision" in Acts to clarify things.
In fact, Peter's vision is not about food at all, but about racism, and the interpretation of the vision is given by Peter himself under angelic guidance.

(4) Nor would the Apostles in council have needed to review the matter and issue a simplified set of food-laws for Gentiles, if Jesus had taught that neither JEWS nor Gentiles needed to keep the Food Laws.
This is just another case of 19th century textual critics running after and idolizing a handful of 4th century manuscripts over and against the traditional text of the New Testament used by Christians for a thousand years.

Mark 7:19 is a good example of what happens when Protestants goof off.

edixon
September 4th, 2009, 05:07 PM
Yes I will comment:

Jesus wasn't wrong, but modern translations, and modern doctrines ARE wrong.



(2) Matthew here copies, edits and interprets Mark, and Mark's version is primitive, so Matthew is of little interest here.

(3) Mark's version has been edited/corrupted in the Alexandrian copying stream, and the corrupted reading has been adopted by almost all "modern" versions, based on the mutilated critical Greek text(s) of Westcott/Hort (1882), Nestle (1908), and UBS-2 (1965).

Here I will post a full account of the proper reading and interpretation of Mark's narrative:

------------------------------------------
The Problem with Mark 7:19

Ok, so you don't want to comment on Matthew.






Mark 7:5-15

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me. 7They worship me in vain;their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and [B]understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]



Mark 7:20-23

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "


The charge is unclean hands, the answer was that nothing entering the body (including unclean hands) would defile a man.

Of course I understand where you're coming from now. Matthew is out, Mark is ok, except it has problems.


Nameste,
Ed

Tyrathca
September 4th, 2009, 06:51 PM
Interesting that your focus is still on making money...perhaps you'd make a good modern doctor after all. It isn't on making money, your the one with the focus on any current or future doctors only wanting to make money. Are you so thick you can't see I was trying to point out that if I were so focused on making money I wouldn't be in medicine but instead choose a different, easier and less stressful profession?

Tyrathca
September 4th, 2009, 07:01 PM
Success in the current educational system indicates quite clearly that:

(1) You've bought into their secular humanist philosophy bigtime, or

(2) You've lied and pretended to buy into their secular humanist philosophy. How does the secular humanist philosophy help you to understand mathematics? How does it help you to understand chemical reactions and the periodic table, how does it help you to undertsand electricity, or the laws of physics, or history, or other languages, or legal studies, etc... All these are things you learn in school and can thus do well in school if you know them. What areas of school would suffer if I had not "bought into" this supposed philosophy? And why did my school seem to overtly teach a christian philosophy that ran counter to my own?


In other words, you've allowed yourself to be marked down as pro-abortion, gay-friendly, anti-Christian, and that you know how to kiss arse and not ruffle feathers by working within the system to take your cut and affect very little social change that is not within the parameters spelled out by the educational heirarchy. I know of no schools that were pro-abortion, mine was anti. I know of no schools that are anti-chrisitian, mine was very much pro-christian. Gay-friendly? Many try but fail, but I doubt you could call any school pro-gay though. What do you know of schools? How can you be so confident in your claims when you admit that it is all based off of a few news reports?

koban
September 4th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Look under your avatar:

Posts: 15,626

and they're all like this. Explains even more.



Dude - you're a frootloop. Totally whacked. Out of your gourd.

You're just so far wrong on stuff that's easy to look up (like diabetes, insulin, alcohol, Thalidomide) that I don't even bother to unravel your foolishness regarding scripture.

Similar in that regard to Omega, another Canuck

Nazaroo
September 5th, 2009, 05:45 AM
What areas of school would suffer if I had not "bought into" this supposed philosophy? And why did my school seem to overtly teach a christian philosophy that ran counter to my own?

I know of no schools that were pro-abortion, mine was anti. I know of no schools that are anti-chrisitian, mine was very much pro-christian. Gay-friendly? Many try but fail, but I doubt you could call any school pro-gay though. What do you know of schools? How can you be so confident in your claims when you admit that it is all based off of a few news reports?

Dude, you live in Australia. You have no clue what is going on here in our schools.

Nazaroo
September 5th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Dude - you're a frootloop. Totally whacked. Out of your gourd.

You're just so far wrong on stuff that's easy to look up (like diabetes, insulin, alcohol, Thalidomide) that I don't even bother to unravel your foolishness regarding scripture.

Similar in that regard to Omega, another Canuck

Oh, lets see: WRONG about the re-release of Thalidomide in South America?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/2/404
http://www.informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/14740338.3.1.47?cookieSet=1&journalCode=eds
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/137438.stm




http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/150106.php


the drug - still used today to treat leprosy, cancer (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/cancer-oncology/whatiscancer.php) of the bone marrow (multiple myeloma (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/161727.php)), and as an anti-tumour agent - could be re-developed for some treatments, so it does not contain the element that causes defects.
...
Thalidomide was available to pregnant women in the late 1950s but it was taken off the UK market in 1961 after a link was made between the drug and the numbers of babies born with severe deformities.
...

"This has become more urgent since the drug is now used around the world to treat leprosy and multiple myeloma, due to the drug's anti-inflammatory abilities and its effects on the immune system.

"Tragically, some children are still being born today with thalidomide-induced limb defects in South America and Africa where it is used as a treatment for leprosy.
But you're right: "stuff that's easy to look up"

http://www.google.com/webhp#hl=en&source=hp&q=Thalidomide+re-released+South+America&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=3aa7f458acaa2672

Why are you acting like such a liar? Do you seriously want to just misinform everyone who reads this thread?

They DID re-release Thalidomide in South America, where German drug companies are free to experiment on human populations, because corporate interests control the corrupt puppet governments.

duh.

peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 5th, 2009, 07:07 AM
Hmmm, while we're at it, lets check the official causes of Diabetes too:



First lets distinguish Type1/Type2 Definitions and Causes:

_________________________________________________
Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmune disease that affects only 0.3% of people on average.

Etiology and Risk factors (http://diabetesinformationhub.com/WhatCausesDiabetes.php) which may trigger type 1 diabetes may be genetic, poor diet (malnutrition) and environment (e.g., virus affecting pancreas). Secondly, in most of the cases, diabetes occurs because there is abnormal levels of some hormones in blood which act as antagonists to insulin. Example- Adrenocortical hormone, Adrenaline hormone and Thyroid hormone.
__________________________________________________

Type 2 Diabetes is also called non insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) or adult-onset diabetes. It occurs when the body produces enough insulin but cannot utilize it effectively.

This type of diabetes usually develops in middle age. A general observation says that about 90-95 % of people suffering with diabetes are type 2; about 80 percent are overweight. It is more common among people who are older; obese;




Following are the Causes of Diabetes


Poor Diet (Malnutrition Related Diabetes) : Improper nutrition, low protein and fiber intake, high intake of refined products are the expected reasons for developing diabetes.
Obesity and Fat Distribution : Being overweight means increased insulin resistance, that is if body fat is more than 30%, BMI 25+, waist grith 35 inches in women or 40 inches in males.
Sedentary Lifestyle : People with sedentary lifestyle are more prone to diabetes, when compared to those who exercise thrice a week, are at low risk of falling prey to diabetes (http://diabetesinformationhub.com/).
Stress : Either physical injury or emotional disturbance is frequently blamed as the initial cause of the disease. Any disturbance in Cortiosteroid or ACTH therapy may lead to clinical signs of the disease.
Drug Induced: Clozapine (Clozaril), olanzapine (Zyprexa), risperidone (Risperdal), quetiapine (Seroquel) and ziprasidone (Geodon) are known to induce this lethal disease.
Infection : Some of the strephylococci is suppose to be responsible factor for infection in pancreas.
Hereditary or Inherited Traits : It is strongly believed that due to some genes which passes from one generation to another, a person can inherit diabetes. It depends upon closeness of blood relationship as mother is diabetic, the risk is 2 to 3%, father is diabetic, the risk is more than the previous case and if both the parents are diabetic, the child has much greater risk for diabetes.


Other Related Conditions/Cofactors


Age : Increased age is a factor which gives more possibility than in younger age. This disease may occur at any age, but 80% of cases occur after 50 year, incidences increase with the age factor.
Sex : Diabetes is commonly seen in elderly especially males but, strongly in women and those females with multiple pregnancy or suffering from (PCOS) Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.
Hypertension : It had been reported in many studies that there is direct relation between high systolic pressure and diabetes.
Serum lipids and lipoproteins : High triglyceride and cholesterol level in the blood is related to high blood sugars, in some cases it has been studied that risk is involved even with low HDL levels in circulating blood.

http://diabetesinformationhub.com/WhatCausesDiabetes.php
__________________________________________________ __________

Officially, the exact causes of Diabetes, especially individual cases, is unknown.

But this just reflects the current Western medical philosophy of not confronting the patient with causes of disease at all, i.e., being judgemental.

Instead, doctors are trained to ignore causes, and concentrate on symptoms, avoiding conflict or comments on obvious dangerous factors and conditions such as lifestyle, and/or work environment, which would implicate and incriminate large corporations for their unsafe work environments and practices.

Thus contrary to current non-judgemental but unrealistic policies, we can say frankly that 90% of modern 'diabetes' (adult-onset) is caused by diet and/or environment, not heredity, which is just a red herring, a smoke-screen to cover up the real problem.

This does not mean that in every case it is the individual patient/victim's fault:


Chemical Hazards in the Workplace and Environment:

Many common chemical hazards are known to cause pancreatic damage and insulin production failure:

Lead exposure, Cadmium, 'junk food' (restaurant chain food, e.g. MacDonalds etc.), for which corporations, not victims or parents should be held accountable for.

"Arsenic acts as a growth stimulant in chickens -- develops the meat faster -- and since then, the poultry industry has gone wild using this ingredient," says Donald Herman, a Mississippi agricultural consultant and former Environmental Protection Agency researcher who has studied this use of arsenic for a decade. At mean levels of chicken consumption (60 g/person/day), people may ingest 1.38-5.24 micrograms/day of inorganic arsenic from chicken alone.


Junk Food Additives are strongly linked to Diabetes:

Alloxan, the chemical that makes white flour look "clean and beautiful" destroys the beta cells of the pancreas. Scientists have known of the alloxan-diabetes connection for years yet there seems to be a conspiracy that defends the integrity of the FDA, which allows dangerous chemicals that can cause diabetes to be used in drugs and food.

aspartame:
According to research conducted by Dr. H.J. Roberts, a diabetes specialist, a member of the ADA, and an authority on artificial sweeteners, aspartame:

1) Leads to the precipitation of clinical diabetes.

2) Causes poorer diabetic control in diabetics on insulin or oral drugs.

3) Leads to the aggravation of diabetic complications such as retinopathy, cataracts, neuropathy and gastroparesis.

4) Causes convulsions.

Dr. Roberts said, "The loss of diabetic control, the intensification of hypoglycemia, the occurrence of presumed 'insulin reactions' (including convulsions) that proved to be aspartame reactions, and the precipitation, aggravation or simulation of diabetic complications (especially impaired vision and neuropathy) while using these products."

The FDA's own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and violated the Delaney Amendment which forbids putting anything in food that is known to cause Cancer.

Sodium Benzoate:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has known for almost 15 years that potassium benzoate and sodium benzoate react with ascorbic acid to form benzenes. Potassium benzoate, sodium benzoate and ascorbic acids are all commonly used to preserve freshness in soft drinks.

The excess of diabetes reported for the Benzene Sub registry occurred in the group aged 10 to 17 years, suggesting it is likely that IDDM is the type of diabetes most prevalent. It has been demonstrated that most IDDM patients have autoantibodies to the pancreas (Lernmark et al., 1981), as well as to other organs Benzene has been shown to stimulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis of mice (Hsieh et al., 1991), accompanied by increased ACTH/corticosterone release into the blood.

Modern pharmaceuticals are also known to cause both Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

http://www.naturalnews.com/023701_diabetes_food_health.html


For more info try here:

http://causesofdiabetes.org/

http://www.google.com/webhp#hl=en&q=causes+of+diabetes+&aq=f&aqi=&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=g10&oq=causes+of+diabetes+&fp=3aa7f458acaa2672

peace
Nazaroo

Tyrathca
September 5th, 2009, 11:02 AM
Dude, you live in Australia. You have no clue what is going on here in our schools. Dude, you yourself admitted that you have no idea what is happening in your schools appart from news reports. Besides it sounded like you were claiming a worldwide conspiracy, do you really think these pharmaceutical companies are obsessed with CANADA of all places???


_________________________________________________
Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmune disease that affects only 0.3% of people on average.

Etiology and Risk factors (http://diabetesinformationhub.com/WhatCausesDiabetes.php) which may trigger type 1 diabetes may be genetic, poor diet (malnutrition) and environment (e.g., virus affecting pancreas). Secondly, in most of the cases, diabetes occurs because there is abnormal levels of some hormones in blood which act as antagonists to insulin. Example- Adrenocortical hormone, Adrenaline hormone and Thyroid hormone. First of all why did you highlight adrenaline, abnormal levels of hormone and environment? Second of all the statement about an association with diet in unsubstantiated and runs contrary to respectable sources such as "Kliegman: Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 18th ed", which states that dietary causes are controversial and are thought to be specific inoccuous types of food not malnourishment (if there is a link at all). Your site doesn't reference itself at all, suprising given its bold and controversial claims.


Instead, doctors are trained to ignore causes, and concentrate on symptoms, avoiding conflict or comments on obvious dangerous factors and conditions such as lifestyle, and/or work environment, which would implicate and incriminate large corporations for their unsafe work environments and practices. Ahhhh.... NO! Doctors do emphasise factors, predominantly exercise, weight and diet in diabetes because by fixing these a patient can, potentially if caught early, avoid medications for a long time.
Thus contrary to current non-judgemental but unrealistic policies, we can say frankly that 90% of modern 'diabetes' (adult-onset) is caused by diet and/or environment, not heredity, which is just a red herring, a smoke-screen to cover up the real problem.Dishonest statement that does not reflect the statistics. T2DM has a strong genetic component as well as the strong lifestyle component, therefore to say that 90% has nothing to do with genes is a dishonest description.



It's late and I'm too tired to do the literature reviews necessary to deal with the rest of your crazy.... :wave:

koban
September 5th, 2009, 11:15 AM
Yeah, me too.


It's way easier to just write him off.

And if he's so wrong on this stuff, why should I invest any time in his craziness about scripture?

Nazaroo
September 5th, 2009, 01:07 PM
Sooner or later every thread gets taken over by a couple of spamming clowns.

Its just too bad you don't want to discuss the OP topic at all.

I'll start a new thread, about drug dealers and the Bible. Maybe that thread will reach some people before you start spamming it.

peace
Nazaroo

Tyrathca
September 5th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Sooner or later every thread gets taken over by a couple of spamming clowns.

Its just too bad you don't want to discuss the OP topic at all.

I'll start a new thread, about drug dealers and the Bible. Maybe that thread will reach some people before you start spamming it.

peace
Nazaroo Hey its your own fault. I'm certainly not spammming as I am responding directly to your posts, if you only want to talk about drug dealing and the bible then only talk about drug dealing and the bible. Don't go crying about how people aren't talking about the OP when your the one who brings up non-biblically related discussions concerning the merits of the medical system and other crazy conspiracies. It makes you look like a spoilt child chucking a tantrum because people aren't playing the way you want.

jeremysdemo
September 5th, 2009, 07:51 PM
Yeah,

and what about all those incense the rabbi's used to burn in the temple?
you know before the DEA classifieds certain herbs as narcotics?...there was no DEA in Biblical times in fact particular herbs and toads, and mushrooms, roots, etc. where sought out in primitive cultures for spiritual rituals.

They used to call it the Shekina, the peace or peaceful presence of the Lord......perhaps just a contact buzz from all the burning incense?

Ancient Hebrew: Man I was so tense today, stressed out, but then I went to the temple and felt the presence of the Lord, now I feel relaxed and at peace.
Ancient Gentile: Dude, your God is great! how do I convert?

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Nazaroo
September 5th, 2009, 10:04 PM
Yeah,

and what about all those incense the rabbi's used to burn in the temple?
you know before the DEA classifieds certain herbs as narcotics?...there was no DEA in Biblical times in fact particular herbs and toads, and mushrooms, roots, etc. where sought out in primitive cultures for spiritual rituals.

They used to call it the Shekina, the peace or peaceful presence of the Lord......perhaps just a contact buzz from all the burning incense?

Ancient Hebrew: Man I was so tense today, stressed out, but then I went to the temple and felt the presence of the Lord, now I feel relaxed and at peace.
Ancient Gentile: Dude, your God is great! how do I convert?

keep shinin

jerm :cool:


I knew we'd be hearing from the "legalize pot" hippie children sooner or later...

Its too bad you influence real children to do stupid things.

Granite
September 6th, 2009, 07:19 AM
I knew we'd be hearing from the "legalize pot" hippie children sooner or later...

Its too bad you influence real children to do stupid things.

From the sounds of it anyone's kids can act good and dumb no matter what their upbringing is.

Stop being so judgmental. You are not a special case and need to stop acting like one.

Nazaroo
September 6th, 2009, 11:42 AM
From the sounds of it anyone's kids can act good and dumb no matter what their upbringing is.

Stop being so judgmental. You are not a special case and need to stop acting like one.

There's nothing more foolish than targeting a sin that doesn't exist, and falsely caricaturing the sinner.

You want to cast me as an adolescent, but I'm afraid your hysteria is probably based upon your own projections from what you know of your own character.

I don't think I'm special, and I am not bothering to 'act out' for you.

You have a good imagination: its a shame to see it wasted on this trash.

Its funny how the non-Christians, the 'real thinkers', the mature people, seem to spin off so easily into these emotionally charged accusations, usually based on fear (xenophobia?) of the unknown.

Its as if you are afraid that Christianity might have some substance after all, even a hidden non-visible reality behind the materialist front, and the crudely physical.

All I can say is I hope you find out that:

(1) Yes, there is a God, He is the God of the Bible, and Christianity is part of His plan.

(2) Its not as scarey as you think: Your panic has a cure - discovering a loving God who will accept you, behind the distorted 'Father figure' you are projecting as a result of your own unhappy childhood.

I am praying for you, because I believe that underneath the posturing and censuring, you are sincere in seeking the truth, and only your confused fears prevent you from deeply investigating the Gospel at face value, which is in fact deeper than you imagine.

peace
Nazaroo

jeremysdemo
September 6th, 2009, 05:00 PM
Yeah,

and what about all those incense the rabbi's used to burn in the temple?
you know before the DEA classifieds certain herbs as narcotics?...there was no DEA in Biblical times in fact particular herbs and toads, and mushrooms, roots, etc. where sought out in primitive cultures for spiritual rituals.

They used to call it the Shekina, the peace or peaceful presence of the Lord......perhaps just a contact buzz from all the burning incense?

Ancient Hebrew: Man I was so tense today, stressed out, but then I went to the temple and felt the presence of the Lord, now I feel relaxed and at peace.
Ancient Gentile: Dude, your God is great! how do I convert?

keep shinin

jerm I knew we'd be hearing from the "legalize pot" hippie children sooner or later...

Its too bad you influence real children to do stupid things.

Legalize! lol not me, I have seen too many great minds obliterated by that stuff! :Patrol:

I don't know if I am so much one of the "hippie children" as I was a child of a hippie :) (only 35 so it was all new wave and punk, not hippie music when I was coming up)

Sorry if I replied on topic, (with real facts about the "burning" in the temple and how it was waved all around the crowd) it won't happen again, you can go back to whatever else it was you were doing here....

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Aner
September 6th, 2009, 07:34 PM
While it is probably irrelevant for me to speak the truth (since no one will pay attention least of all the idealogue who started this thread in the first place) - I will make one comment.

Pharmakeia has NOTHING to do with the religious right's war on drugs - this is a propaganda ploy. Pharmakeia has to do with using herbs and the like (perhaps the herbs we use for our food) to cast spells and engage in sorcery. Please review Kittel's etc for a correct understanding of this word and concept...

It is the sorcery that is an issue - not the poor hemp plant that God made, God called "good" and God gave to mankind to use (Gen1:29, etc.).

This whole drug use/pharmakeia thing is another phoney Evangelical attempt at "morality-policing" just as they did with alcohol prohibition and nearly tore our country apart....

I attach Jim Webb's discussion from the LEAP home page as to the massive disconnect with the incarceration rates in the USA and the entire rest of the known world... etc.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php


It would be better that we started respecting God and His creation rather than calling it and, thus, Him, evil.... as our "leaders" criminalize and the religious leadership demonize His creation.

Best,
Aner

Tyrathca
September 6th, 2009, 08:24 PM
You want to cast me as an adolescent, but I'm afraid your hysteria is probably based upon your own projections from what you know of your own character. Granites posts could hardlt be called hysterical, your own argument would be better directed at yourself.
I don't think I'm special, and I am not bothering to 'act out' for you. Well you act like it, maybe then you should re-assess how you present yourself to others.
Its as if you are afraid that Christianity might have some substance after all, even a hidden non-visible reality behind the materialist front, and the crudely physical. Thats some serious projecting of what you'd like non chrisitans to think.
(2) Its not as scarey as you think: Your panic has a cure - discovering a loving God who will accept you, behind the distorted 'Father figure' you are projecting as a result of your own unhappy childhood. Very poor pop-psych analysis, especially since your only basis for this assumption is that granite is an not religious therefore you are claiming that ALL the hundreds of millions of nonreligious in the world all had unhappy childhoods and distorted "father figure". Care to present any evidence for this? It should be fairly easy to prove a strong correlation between it and atheism since they have done similar studies for psychiatric disorders such as depression.

Granite
September 7th, 2009, 06:08 AM
There's nothing more foolish than targeting a sin that doesn't exist, and falsely caricaturing the sinner.

You want to cast me as an adolescent, but I'm afraid your hysteria is probably based upon your own projections from what you know of your own character.

I don't think I'm special, and I am not bothering to 'act out' for you.

You have a good imagination: its a shame to see it wasted on this trash.

Its funny how the non-Christians, the 'real thinkers', the mature people, seem to spin off so easily into these emotionally charged accusations, usually based on fear (xenophobia?) of the unknown.

Its as if you are afraid that Christianity might have some substance after all, even a hidden non-visible reality behind the materialist front, and the crudely physical.

All I can say is I hope you find out that:

(1) Yes, there is a God, He is the God of the Bible, and Christianity is part of His plan.

(2) Its not as scarey as you think: Your panic has a cure - discovering a loving God who will accept you, behind the distorted 'Father figure' you are projecting as a result of your own unhappy childhood.

I am praying for you, because I believe that underneath the posturing and censuring, you are sincere in seeking the truth, and only your confused fears prevent you from deeply investigating the Gospel at face value, which is in fact deeper than you imagine.

peace
Nazaroo

Well I don't know where your post came from or what you're talking about, so maybe we should just stop wasting each other's time. You've taken your pain as a parent and used it as an excuse to act increasingly arrogant and obnoxious throughout this thread. Quit acting like a high and mighty special case (and especially stop trolling Facebook for pictures of teenagers: creepy) and seek some help. You have significant issues for which professional guidance would probably be extremely beneficial.

jeremysdemo
September 7th, 2009, 08:23 AM
I think he is trying to prove that the incense burning in the Temple was sorcery, of course we may never know since he does not respond directly to topic related post and only makes quick snide faulty presumptions about the posters instead, ad hominem.

If he had a point he could have made it by now, or at the least had a dialogue about the topic with those whom came willing.

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

jeremysdemo
September 7th, 2009, 08:34 PM
:spam:

Nazaroo
September 10th, 2009, 05:51 PM
I think he is trying to prove that the incense burning in the Temple was sorcery, of course we may never know since he does not respond directly to topic related post and only makes quick snide faulty presumptions about the posters instead, ad hominem.

If he had a point he could have made it by now, or at the least had a dialogue about the topic with those whom came willing.

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

More disinformation from a couple of spammers.

My message was clear from the first post:

Drug dealers are going to be thrown in the Lake of Fire, unless they quickly repent.

If any man is still alive, he still has a chance to repent. However, don't count on staying alive and repenting later. When God comes for your soul, all your lying and greed will crumble away into the sand it was built on.

You'll be by yourself, facing the most powerful Being in the Universe. And He won't be pleased, because he gave you a whole lifetime to repent, and listen to Him, and start doing what He asked of you.

All those people you exploited, shamed, injured, enslaved and killed will also be facing you, with Jesus backing them up.

I was once walking downtown, as was my habit, wearing a jean-jacket I had written on the back of with a magic-marker: "The Dead Rise."

As I passed by a local prostitute, she saw the back of my jacket and began to beat me on the back, shouting "Why? Why are you showing me that?".

I wasn't hurt, but was quite surprised. I had been all along assuming my message was wonderful news, encouraging and joyful. But to this person it only meant dread and fear.

I had not understood what it meant that she had been a witness and participant in murders, and knew her blood-guilt. She was indeed going to hell, and enslaved in a system of exploitation in which victims exploit yet more victims, to serve crooks, the mafia, and ultimately Satan.

Rightly did Jesus say, "The hireling only comes to steal, and destroy, and kill."

To accept money is to be a hireling, and to work for the earthly powers, all criminal, is to be guilty of their crimes, aiding and abetting murder, torture, exploitation, abuse.

What gives these earthly powers and organizations the ability to enslave and exploit millions, even turn them on each other?

DRUGS.

Thats why God and Jesus condemn uttterly DRUGS, DRUG DEALS, DRUG BUYING AND SELLING, and DRUG DEALERS.

God warns that these monsters, even when confronted with their crimes, and immanent Judgement, WILL NOT REPENT. In that Day, the DAY OF THE LORD, it will be too late to repent. They will not be capable of repentance, as Jesus forsaw.

They will be as enslaved as their victims, and will find themselves trapped on the conveyer-belt to the Lake of Fire.

peace
Naaroo

koban
September 10th, 2009, 05:58 PM
Naz, you're a silly little fool who has twisted scripture to meet your needs.

Congratulations.

jeremysdemo
September 10th, 2009, 07:48 PM
I think he is trying to prove that the incense burning in the Temple was sorcery, of course we may never know since he does not respond directly to topic related post and only makes quick snide faulty presumptions about the posters instead, ad hominem.

If he had a point he could have made it by now, or at the least had a dialogue about the topic with those whom came willing.

keep shinin

jerm More disinformation from a couple of spammers.

My message was clear from the first post:

Drug dealers are going to be thrown in the Lake of Fire, unless they quickly repent.

If any man is still alive, he still has a chance to repent. However, don't count on staying alive and repenting later. When God comes for your soul, all your lying and greed will crumble away into the sand it was built on.

You'll be by yourself, facing the most powerful Being in the Universe. And He won't be pleased, because he gave you a whole lifetime to repent, and listen to Him, and start doing what He asked of you.

All those people you exploited, shamed, injured, enslaved and killed will also be facing you, with Jesus backing them up.

I was once walking downtown, as was my habit, wearing a jean-jacket I had written on the back of with a magic-marker: "The Dead Rise."

As I passed by a local prostitute, she saw the back of my jacket and began to beat me on the back, shouting "Why? Why are you showing me that?".

I wasn't hurt, but was quite surprised. I had been all along assuming my message was wonderful news, encouraging and joyful. But to this person it only meant dread and fear.

I had not understood what it meant that she had been a witness and participant in murders, and knew her blood-guilt. She was indeed going to hell, and enslaved in a system of exploitation in which victims exploit yet more victims, to serve crooks, the mafia, and ultimately Satan.

Rightly did Jesus say, "The hireling only comes to steal, and destroy, and kill."

To accept money is to be a hireling, and to work for the earthly powers, all criminal, is to be guilty of their crimes, aiding and abetting murder, torture, exploitation, abuse.

What gives these earthly powers and organizations the ability to enslave and exploit millions, even turn them on each other?

DRUGS.

Thats why God and Jesus condemn uttterly DRUGS, DRUG DEALS, DRUG BUYING AND SELLING, and DRUG DEALERS.

God warns that these monsters, even when confronted with their crimes, and immanent Judgement, WILL NOT REPENT. In that Day, the DAY OF THE LORD, it will be too late to repent. They will not be capable of repentance, as Jesus forsaw.

They will be as enslaved as their victims, and will find themselves trapped on the conveyer-belt to the Lake of Fire.

peace
Naaroo

Just curious how all that fits into the incense that were burned in the Temple......

I mean so far we got Y'shua going into the temple turning over the tables of the change makers, and we know of the historic evidence of the incense (all the "herbs" that were burnt before there was a DEA to classify them as narcotics)....

I don't think anyone is arguing that drugs are not bad m-kay or that humanity does not need to repent of all their vile ways, just trying to put this into biblical perspective using the evidence we do have of temple practices.

Swinging the dead bloody chicken over everyone's heads to capture the sins of the crowd is making more sense now if drugs truly were involved in temple worship.....but there is still a huge gap here seems like a stretch....it would be nice to have the actual thread starter to be involved in this whole dialogue..... :yawn: instead of just going off on his sermon, preaching to the choir I'm afraid....


keep shinin

jerm :cool:

jeremysdemo
September 14th, 2009, 12:31 PM
quit slacking on your pimpin and run your thread zoolander. :up:

people come here to converse with one another not read your introverted dissertations.... :Patrol:

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Aner
September 14th, 2009, 03:26 PM
Thats why God and Jesus condemn uttterly DRUGS, DRUG DEALS, DRUG BUYING AND SELLING, and DRUG DEALERS.


God warns that these monsters, even when confronted with their crimes, and immanent Judgement, WILL NOT REPENT. In that Day, the DAY OF THE LORD, it will be too late to repent. They will not be capable of repentance, as Jesus forsaw.

God does no such thing - God did not deal with our modern day urban issues. What God does is condemn those who add to His Word however.....

Nazaroo
September 14th, 2009, 05:41 PM
Nazaroo: Statement:



Thats why God and Jesus condemn uttterly DRUGS, DRUG DEALS, DRUG BUYING AND SELLING, and DRUG DEALERS.
...
God warns that these monsters, even when confronted with their crimes, and immanent Judgement, WILL NOT REPENT. In that Day, the DAY OF THE LORD, it will be too late to repent. They will not be capable of repentance, as Jesus forsaw.


Aner: Response:


God does no such thing - God did not deal with our modern day urban issues. What God does is condemn those who add to His Word however.....


__________________________________________________ __

Nazaroo: Counterpoint I:
"God does no such thing:" - Aner


Quick Fact Check: Book of Revelation
'And the remainder of humankind, those who were not killed by these (world-scale) plagues,
did not repent of their works, in worshipping demons, and idols of gold and silver, ... that cannot see nor hear nor move:

And they did not repent of their murdering, nor of their drug dealing, nor of their fornicating, nor of their robbery.'


και ου μετενοησαν εκ των φονων αυτων ουτε εκ των φαρμακειων αυτων ουτε εκ της πορνειας αυτων ουτε εκ των κλεμματων αυτων



(Revelation 9:20-21)


Now it just so happens that the three LARGEST INDUSTRIES in the world today are, coincidentally,
(1) Murder: Gun dealing, weaponry and warfare (the Military Industrial Complex = 1.2 trillion dollars annually?)
(2) Drug Dealing: (International Drug Cartels supported by CIA etc. = 400 Billion USD $ in 1997. )
(3) Prostitution: (Porn is the next largest industry by economic measure = 500 Billion US $)
Which all amounts to systematic
(4) Robbery: and oppression, exploitation of the poor.
So I would say that by amazing coincidence, Jesus speaking through John the Seer in the Book of Revelation foresaw only too well what could not have even been imagined by ordinary men in 100 A.D.

Jesus was 'spot-on' in predicting both the largest industries and main source of political and ethical corruption facing humankind in the Last Days.

But just as importantly, Jesus here predicts the most important fact about these murderers and oppressors in the Last Days: They will not repent.

No surprises there.

__________________________________________________ ______

Nazaroo: Counterpoint II:
"What God does is condemn those who add to His Word however....." -Aner
No, this is also inaccurate:

God condemns BOTH those who ADD and those who TAKE AWAY, or obscure the plain message of Revelation for these LAST DAYS:

'I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.


(Revelation 22:18-19)

__________________________________________________ \
References:

100 Billion to 500 Billion $USD for Illegal Drugs Alone:

According to the UN in 1998:
"With estimates of $100 billion to $110 billion for heroin, $110 billion to $130 billion for cocaine, $75 billion for cannabis and $60 billion for synthetic drugs, the probable global figure for the total illicit drug industry would be approximately $360 billion. Given the conservative bias in some of the estimates for individual substances, a turnover of around $400 billion per annum is considered realistic. This figure can be compared to estimates of more than $500 billion which are based solely on the average of minimum and maximum prices in the United States."
Source: United Nations Drug Control Program, "Economic and Social Consequences of Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking," Technical Series No. 6, 1998, p. 55

the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) [an inter-governmental body focusing on anti-money laundering activities and legislation] hired Peter Reuter, a well-known economist who has done extensive work on illegal drug markets, and produced an estimate. This job had the full cooperation of the UNDCP, which opened its data bank to the researcher. The resulting study is probably the most serious attempt to ascertain the size of the world illegal drug market and resulted in an estimated range between $45 and $280 billion."
________________________________________
Total world spending on military expenses in 2006 was $1.158 trillion US dollars. Nearly half of this total, 528.7 billion US dollars, was spent by the United States. The privatization of the production and invention of military technology also leads to a complicated relationship with significant research and development of many technologies. -Wikepedia
__________________________________________

One in 10 British men has visited a prostitute. Yes, that's 10 per cent. And who is servicing them? Around 80,000 sex workers, a figure that is said to include 4,000 women and children trafficked into the country to work as sex slaves. Our laws on paid sex, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith declared, are long overdue for a rethink.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/sex-industry/sex-for-sale-the-truth-about-prostitution-in-britain-1035038.html

_____________________________________________

Important key findings:


At least 100,000 children are used in prostitution every year in the United States.
The average age of entry into prostitution is 13 years old.
Prostituted girls are often controlled by a pimp who recruits them into sex trafficking by posing as a boyfriend, caretaker, and protector.
The 3 primary manifestations of child sex trafficking in America is: pimp-controlled prostitution, familial prostitution, and/or survival sex.
The business of sex trafficking of America's youth is flourishing as demand for commercial sex with young, innocent girls and boys continues to occur with little and low punishment.
Child sexual slavery is fueled by a cultural of tolerance which glorifies pimping and normalizes the sexual exploitation of children.

Domestic minor sex trafficking is a serious problem in the U.S., and one that will not be solved overnight.
http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog?category_id=sex_trafficking_and_prostitution&page=5

_____________________________________--

Larry Flint (Hustler Magazine) alone is seeking 5 Billion from YOUR GOVERNMENT:

US porn industry seeks multi-billion dollar bailout

Porn baron Larry Flynt is seeking a $5 billion bailout from Washington to rejuvenate the industry, which he says is suffering because of the economic downturn.
http://www.sodahead.com/business/us-porn-industry-seeks-multi-billion-dollar-bailout/blog-36029/?page=2

peace
Nazaroo

Aner
September 15th, 2009, 12:09 AM
Naz

I appreciate your effort and sincerity - however, that translation is false.

I did not deny God's full condemnation - I focused on one aspect - the aspect that I am concerned that you are participating in.

Your neat model though is kind of cool - but that does not make it accurate.

Best,

Aner

Nazaroo
September 15th, 2009, 11:28 AM
Naz

I appreciate your effort and sincerity - however, that translation is false.

I did not deny God's full condemnation - I focused on one aspect - the aspect that I am concerned that you are participating in.

Your neat model though is kind of cool - but that does not make it accurate.

Best,

Aner

You have provided absolutely NO linguistic, grammatical, lexical, historical, or religious information which would contradict or negate the translation of pharmakeia (φαρμακεια) as DRUG DEALING.

I on the other hand, can provide plenty of historical and patristic evidence that as far back as the 2nd century A.D., Christian writers understood it to mean DRUGS, starting with the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions.

So just where is your argument against the translation?

I'm hardly alone in acknowledging that (φαρμακεια) is DRUG DEALING.


http://www.drugabuseinscripture.co.uk/index.html
http://www.drugabuseinscripture.co.uk/html/early_church.html

http://www.presentruth.com/2009/06/sorcery-pharmaceuticals-and-babylon-the-great/
http://moniquemonicat.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/so-is-this-a-conspiracy/

Nazaroo
September 15th, 2009, 11:57 AM
Opponents who Support Recreational Drug Use

It should be carefully noted (with alarm) that even groups PROMOTING the use of Marijuana and drugs also acknowledge that (φαρμακεια) is DRUG DEALING, but they try to make a distinction between "medicine" and "drug abuse" by claiming that the kind of (φαρμακεια)/ DRUG DEALING condemned in the Bible is "always associated with demon worship and magic rituals".

However, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of such a distinction in the New Testament at all, and they have already conceded that (φαρμακεια) is in fact DRUG DEALING.

http://www.lucashempco.com/cms/node/24


It is interesting that they attempt to cite Origen (circa 200 A.D.) in support of their view:

Origen said it well,
"no one would act rationally in avoiding medicine because of it's heresies".

The Bible does not tell us to refuse medicine, it tells us to refuse sorcery. We are free to use medicines in the purposes that God designed them to be used, and are to acknowledge Him concerning them.This is essentially worthless hairsplitting. The idea is that you can smoke all the dope you like, as long as you are not also worshipping blastic Buddhas or satanic idols. "God actually loves dope smoking."





The problem of course is that Paul and other NT writers condemned Drug Dealing specifically, and were only secondarily concerned with idolatry and magic. The fact remains that the Greek word (φαρμακεια) is DRUG DEALING, not sorcery.Whether or not there is a legitimate 'use' for medicine, or whether or not the Bible approves/disapproves of "Legal Medicine, used properly", the fact remains that(φαρμακεια) is DRUG DEALING, and this is the primary meaning of the Greek word to this very day in Greece.



Fawning politicians and compromised theologians can praise pharmaceutical companies and doctors all they like, but the fact remains that pharmaceuticals are drugs, and the Bible really does mention DRUG DEALING 5 times.

_________________________________________________
Fuller Origen quotation here:


"...For since the science of medicine is useful and necessary to the human race, and many are the points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous heresies[divisions of opinion] confessedly prevailing in the science of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess to employ medicine....And yet no one would act rationally in avoiding medicine because of its heresies..."

-Origen
Against Celsus, Book III, Chapter XII-


We perhaps should mention that Origen (in spite of his 'great' reputation as a scholar) was also a man who was so confused that he cut off his own testicles.
He probably should have got a second medical opinion himself on that blunder.

...and his work was responsible for the mutilation of the LXX (Greek O.T.) to make it conform to the apostate (post Christian) Jewish (Massoretic c. 200 A.D.) Text of the Old Testament.

Perhaps Origen is not the first person we want to consult when establishing subtle nuances of meaning for the NT text, or the value of medical procedures either!

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 16th, 2009, 03:43 PM
"By their fruits ye shall know them..."




The war on cannabis, like all sin, misses the mark. "Just say no" is not the command of God. The claimed benefits of "just say no" are secondary and paradoxical to reality. There is an image of saving lives, but in reality, asceticism pays no mind to the lives it destroys. Paul writes that, although "touch not, taste not, handle not" all have an appearance of wisdom, they in the end result in fleshly indulgence (Col 2). We can see this play out in the war on cannabis.

http://www.lucashempco.com/cms/node/24

Here we see those who want to "legalize" marijuana actually turn the meaning of sin upside-down.

They move from claiming that smoking drugs is NOT a sin, easily forward to the next idea: - that opposing legalisation of marijuana IS a sin!

More astute readers will notice that the concept of 'sin' hasn't gone anywhere: its just been shuffled around for the convenience of pot smokers.

Of course you have to smoke sufficient quantities of marijuana to see the logic of this, so don't be surprised if you just don't "get it"...

edixon
September 17th, 2009, 08:26 AM
I'm hardly alone in acknowledging that (φαρμακεια) is DRUG DEALING.


Hardly! This has been argued for thousands of years.

I understand your points, and do not care to argue. I have not studied this whole thread and want to ask, how you feel about Jesus turning water to wine.
I suppose you believe He did, but was it just juice or was it fermented?


Nameste,
Ed

jeremysdemo
September 17th, 2009, 06:23 PM
He already answered that. "what he thinks of the water into wine story".

He presents Y'shua as a militant leader which is an interesting angle but not that uncommon for "Messiahs" of His day.

He refuses to address the incense in the Temple, although if want wanted to make a biblical and historical case for drugs in the common era that would be foolish to leave out of the thesis............unless of course it is counterproductive to a particular bias agenda.....

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

edixon
September 17th, 2009, 09:10 PM
He already answered that. "what he thinks of the water into wine story".

He presents Y'shua as a militant leader which is an interesting angle but not that uncommon for "Messiahs" of His day.

He refuses to address the incense in the Temple, although if want wanted to make a biblical and historical case for drugs in the common era that would be foolish to leave out of the thesis............unless of course it is counterproductive to a particular bias agenda.....

keep shinin

jerm :cool:


Thanks, I didn't think he would listen to reason.




Nameste,
Ed

Nazaroo
September 17th, 2009, 09:26 PM
Hardly! This has been argued for thousands of years.

I understand your points, ...
I want to ask, how you feel about Jesus turning water to wine.
I suppose you believe He did, but was it just juice or was it fermented?

Nameste,
Ed

The full answer to your very good question was discussed in great detail by me in another thread on CARM forum only a few months ago.

But they have restricted access to threads in many forum areas to members only now, so I don't know if the link will work for you.

Even if you access that thread, in order to catch up on the discussion, you also need to read the other thread on "wine" (oinos) and alcohol in that forum (also probably restricted). However, you can also access a similar thread of mine on CF forums too. I will try to find the link...

and you need my commentary on a mistranslation of Mark, but that can be found here :

http://adultera.awardspace.com/SUPLEM/UBSgaffs.html#Mark10

This explains how Mark was garbled and mistranslated by modern RC versions to support the doctrine that Gentiles and Christians can eat anything they want, when in fact that is scientifically false and medically dangerous.

I will however, start a new thread here on TOL in order for people here to get the full argument concerning the Wedding at Cana in John's Gospel.


Peace
Nazaroo

Ktoyou
September 17th, 2009, 10:14 PM
The whole point of Malthus and modern ethnic murder is to kill non-whites. Of course that means that "medicine" shipped to the third world is worthless, and actually kills people.

Its no coincidence.

Malthus and the European Elite plan to kill Blacks and Asians:

this is a bit crazy, particularly including Asians:mad:

Nazaroo
September 17th, 2009, 10:24 PM
this is a bit crazy, particularly including Asians:mad:


Yes, it IS a bit crazy: but it accurately reflects the way the European elite viewed other ethnic groups, especially after Malthus published his popular essays on how "whites" were slowing down in reproduction while other ethnic groups were multiplying at faster rates, and his charts on how long the world's resources would last at projected (exponential) rates.

This elitist thinking is popular among the minority of European power-groups (some 500 rich families) who control most of the world's industry, banking and trade.

I never said it was clear thinking or even sane thinking, just that Malthus was and is popular among the super-rich.

peace
Nazaroo

Ktoyou
September 17th, 2009, 10:37 PM
Yes, it IS a bit crazy: but it accurately reflects the way the European elite viewed other ethnic groups, especially after Malthus published his popular essays on how "whites" were slowing down in reproduction while other ethnic groups were multiplying at faster rates, and his charts on how long the world's resources would last at projected (exponential) rates.

This elitist thinking is popular among the minority of European power-groups (some 500 rich families) who control most of the world's industry, banking and trade.

I never said it was clear thinking or even sane thinking, just that Malthus was and is popular among the super-rich.

peace
Nazaroo

Problem is the super rich is increasing amongst Asians much faster than Europeans and since 1945, Asians have become more elite in attitude than Europeans.

These ideas, you point out as Malthus, only reveals his old way of looking at the world; he must be a 19th century thinker.

Nazaroo
September 19th, 2009, 09:30 AM
Problem is the super rich is increasing amongst Asians much faster than Europeans and since 1945, Asians have become more elite in attitude than Europeans.

These ideas, you point out as Malthus, only reveals his old way of looking at the world; he must be a 19th century thinker.

Malthus may have been a 19th century thinker, but unfortunately the current elite are 21st century idiots who run the world system of economics, trade, warfare and government.

These clowns perpetuate these nonsensical, racist, and unscientific ideas, because it suits their own xenophobic agendas.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 19th, 2009, 09:36 AM
He already answered that. "what he thinks of the water into wine story".

He presents Y'shua as a militant leader which is an interesting angle but not that uncommon for "Messiahs" of His day.

He refuses to address the incense in the Temple, although if want wanted to make a biblical and historical case for drugs in the common era that would be foolish to leave out of the thesis............unless of course it is counterproductive to a particular bias agenda.....

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

We are well aware of the popular belief that Moses and his men smoked marijuana in the "tent of the LORD", a story which is continually propagated by those who want to legalize marijuana and other drugs.

However, no credible scholar has given any support to this absurd thesis.

John Allegro is the exception, but he was a wacko who thought that Moses also promoted eating "magic (hallucenogenic) mushrooms" and worshipped them.

No other serious researchers (including Jewish atheists) have taken Allegro's claims seriously.

peace
Nazaroo

LightSon
September 19th, 2009, 03:02 PM
The obvious question then comes to mind.

Many mainstream Christian groups, even large denominations, have come to understand that the New Testament recommends abstinence, not "moderation", with both alcohol, and sex, because this impedes the Gospel the least, when such abstinence is done in the right Spirit of charity and concern for weaker brothers, sisters, neighbours, and children.

Is it not likely, even very obvious, that something has gone terribly wrong in modern hermeneutics and exegesis, when either (a) hypocrisy is created in the selective interpretation of 'freedoms'? or (b) other formerly clear teachings become so significantly weakened (e.g. the position on fornication), that almost any behaviour is accepted?

Finally: What damage is done to the authority of the Bible, especially the New Testament, when churches can RE-define 'normal' and acceptable ethical behaviour over and above the teaching found in the NT itself? Isn't there a 'consistency' requirement for any NEW revelations or innovations? A backwards-compatibility if you will, for modern Christian doctrine and practice?

Or do we open the Bottomless Pit and let out every variation of behaviour that would formerly have been identified as "sin"?

We have in fact already seen this in some denominations today, with the approval of open homosexual relations, recreational alcohol and drug abuse, fornication and 'open-marriages', reckless selfishness and hedonism.

What will distinguish a "Christian" in the near future? Bingo gambling? Building-maintenance funds?

peace
Nazaroo

I haven't figured Nazaroo out yet, but he does ask some good questions. Who can disagree that most churches have moved in their moral standards, often just a few paces behind the world. I met a young unmarried couple recently, who both claim to be Christian, yet "sleep" at each other's apartment unbashedly. Huh? Is this okay now? Does the flock sleep as we fall down every slippery slope?

jeremysdemo
September 19th, 2009, 03:36 PM
He already answered that. "what he thinks of the water into wine story".

He presents Y'shua as a militant leader which is an interesting angle but not that uncommon for "Messiahs" of His day.

He refuses to address the incense in the Temple, although if want wanted to make a biblical and historical case for drugs in the common era that would be foolish to leave out of the thesis............unless of course it is counterproductive to a particular bias agenda.....

keep shinin

jerm We are well aware of the popular belief that Moses and his men smoked marijuana in the "tent of the LORD", a story which is continually propagated by those who want to legalize marijuana and other drugs.

"We are"? I was not aware of any belief about Moses and marijuana, I must not be popular enough to know these things...perhaps if I buy some new draws that hang off my butt and mingle with the in crowd I can be in the know next time.....:eek:

All that aside I was speaking originally of burnt offerings to God.....in the Temple, not "smoking" anything directly out of a hooka or something......:wazzup:

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

edixon
September 19th, 2009, 04:38 PM
and you need my commentary on a mistranslation of Mark,



No, not really.........

Nazaroo
September 20th, 2009, 04:37 AM
I haven't figured Nazaroo out yet, but he does ask some good questions. Who can disagree that most churches have moved in their moral standards, often just a few paces behind the world. I met a young unmarried couple recently, who both claim to be Christian, yet "sleep" at each other's apartment unbashedly. Huh? Is this okay now? Does the flock sleep as we fall down every slippery slope?

Thanks for appreciating this important point.

The Christian community ("the Church") is in deep trouble, and we really are entering the Last Days, when no one will endure sound doctrine, as Paul predicted in 2nd Timothy 4:3.

peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
September 23rd, 2009, 03:41 PM
Who can disagree that most churches have moved in their moral standards, often just a few paces behind the world. I met a young unmarried couple recently, who both claim to be Christian, yet "sleep" at each other's apartment unbashedly.

One thing that is particularly disturbing about this trend is that one principle depends for its support on another.

What is happening now is that mainstream Christian doctrines are being eroded from multiple angles.

I was able in the past to show that "drinking moderately" was not a legitimate interpretation of "be sober", by using a parallel illustration with fornication:

That "flee fornication!" could not mean "fornicate moderately".

Now that both Christians and mainstream churches are indeed saying "fornicate moderately", this defence against drug abuse is also eroded.

Hand in hand, one blind and false doctrine leads another doctrine into a ditch, and the people who follow it with them.

peace
nazaroo

jeremysdemo
October 2nd, 2009, 07:07 PM
So I take it this is an indictment of the U.S. pharmaceutical companies?

After all they are the biggest seller of drugs in the Northern hemisphere.

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Yazichestvo
October 2nd, 2009, 11:57 PM
D:

Wow. This guy is scary. What reasoning!

He compares the argument that insulin is natural to the argument that Marijuana is "natural". As if that unnatural act of inhaling smoke was comparable to the use of insulin, which is SUPPOSED to be in your body. Next he'll be damning Doctors who give blood transfusions.

LightSon
October 3rd, 2009, 12:04 AM
D:

Wow. This guy is scary. What reasoning!

He compares the argument that insulin is natural to the argument that Marijuana is "natural". As if that unnatural act of inhaling smoke was comparable to the use of insulin, which is SUPPOSED to be in your body. Next he'll be damning Doctors who give blood transfusions.

Didn't you know we all have trace amounts of THC in our body chemistry? Smoking pot must therefore be natural. :hammer:

jeremysdemo
October 3rd, 2009, 07:24 PM
There is THc in Banana peels if memory serves me correct....

And you don't have to smoke herbs to get the medicinal benefits out of them.
Ingesting plants is an older practice of man than any text of hieroglyphic writing of man.

Still don't know what any of that has to do with the incense being burned in the Temple in the time of Y'shua, the thread owner never made any biblical or historical link there......:juggle:


keep shinin

jerm :cool:

koban
October 3rd, 2009, 08:10 PM
There is THc in Banana peels if memory serves me correct....




I had thought so too (and I'm a chemist with a background in illicit drugs, both professionaly and personally), but alas, it turns out to have been an urban myth.

jeremysdemo
October 4th, 2009, 06:13 PM
I had thought so too (and I'm a chemist with a background in illicit drugs, both professionaly and personally), but alas, it turns out to have been an urban myth.

Ya,

I must have read it in an outdated growers book from the 70's.

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Nazaroo
October 7th, 2009, 12:41 AM
I'm bumping this whole thread again because it may be the very last chance for some of the drug dealers who post here to repent, and save their own souls.

I wish I was exaggerating. But I know something of druggies.

I was just listening to a former repentant drug dealer the other day. They had a remarkable thing to say:

"I didn't consider myself a drug dealer while I was doing it. I had in my mind that I only sold drugs to my friends. It was a way of keeping myself in supply, that's how I viewed it. But I made a tidy profit which kept me in plenty of drugs. The fact is, however, I sold drugs to anyone who wanted to buy them. I would sell to anyone, any age, whatever. But I only realised and faced the fact I was a drug dealer after I quit doing it. I was willingly blind to what was before my eyes."

I remarked about this statement to several other friends and aquaintances, former addicts and dealers. They all said exactly the same thing. The guy had described all of them perfectly. They were all really serious drug dealers, but all the time, they told themselves they were only doing it to help friends etc.

It is a massive self-denial that goes along with almost every henious and life-threatening sin. The doer cannot face his own ugliness until he stops.

Pray for your own deliverance, and I will pray for you also.

peace
Nazaroo

Persephone66
October 7th, 2009, 01:12 AM
I have an aunt and uncle that were drug dealers.

Then they became born again Christians.

Now they steal money from the government on a false disability claim and have the nerve to tell me I'm a bad person and deserve Hell.

Nazaroo
October 7th, 2009, 09:37 AM
I have an aunt and uncle that were drug dealers.

Then they became born again Christians.

Now they steal money from the government on a false disability claim and have the nerve to tell me I'm a bad person and deserve Hell.

Surely being Christian is a legitimate disability to you, isn't it?


When the government steals in the first place ("Income tax will be a temporary measure", "international corporations are the biggest welfare cheats, paying no tax" etc. etc.), its good to hear about a few poor citizens clawing some back.

But if they are from your family and are your elders, its YOU who should be supporting them in their old age. You must be ashamed, after reading Jesus' stinging indictment in Mark 7:10-11.

It sounds like they are just repeating what Jesus would have told you.


peace
Nazaroo

Persephone66
October 8th, 2009, 08:00 PM
Surely being Christian is a legitimate disability to you, isn't it?
Mental disability it seems.


When the government steals in the first place ("Income tax will be a temporary measure", "international corporations are the biggest welfare cheats, paying no tax" etc. etc.), its good to hear about a few poor citizens clawing some back.
Even if they are lying, cheating and ultimately stealing to get it?

But if they are from your family and are your elders, its YOU who should be supporting them in their old age. You must be ashamed, after reading Jesus' stinging indictment in Mark 7:10-11.
They are not that old and are quite capable of supporting themselves. In fact that both have jobs where they get paid under the table.


It sounds like they are just repeating what Jesus would have told you.
Lying in a court of law, cheating and stealing from the government gets you into heaven. Meanwhile being transgendered and listening to industrial music sends you to hell.

Yeah your Jesus sounds like a real dirtbag. :thumb:

Explains why another Christian I know is a kleptomaniac.

Really where can I sign up for this?

LightSon
October 8th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Lying in a court of law, cheating and stealing from the government gets you into heaven. Meanwhile being transgendered and listening to industrial music sends you to hell.

Sorry to contradict, but since you are an athiest, you might consider deferring to a theist when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Does that make sense?

Getting into heaven is not based on lying or not lying; stealing or not stealing; transgendering or not, listening to industrial music or not.

John 3:18
He that believeth on [Jesus] is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It's really very simple.

Nazaroo
October 8th, 2009, 09:17 PM
Mental disability it seems.


Even if they are lying, cheating and ultimately stealing to get it?


All's fair in class warfare. Ask a Jew or a Palestinian. Rules for civilized living between non-hostiles don't apply.




They are not that old and are quite capable of supporting themselves. In fact that both have jobs where they get paid under the table.
Excellent. Borrow some money from them.




Lying in a court of law, cheating and stealing from the government gets you into heaven. Meanwhile being transgendered and listening to industrial music sends you to hell.
If that court of law had legitimate authority from God, as through the government (theocracy) set up by Moses, you'd have a legitimate complaint.

But the God of the Bible doesn't regard the governments, armies, and unauthorized legal contracts of goyim nations (Gentiles), any more than a wife or daughter has a right to sign a contract without approval from husband or father.

Ask the Big Guy. See if you can sneak something past Him.

The blame for being transgendered for most people born post-60s will be laid square at the feet of money-grubbing German Pharmaceutical companies and Lesbian feminists who pushed the Pill so hard it poisoned our drinking water.




Yeah your Jesus sounds like a real dirtbag. :thumb:
Long ago a great theologian observed:

"The Bible is like a mirror: if a donkey looks into it, a donkey looks back out at him."


Explains why another Christian I know is a kleptomaniac.
Only rich people are kleptomaniacs. - and they aren't Christians by definition. Luke 18:25



Really where can I sign up for this?You're finally making sense.
I'd sign up quick, before Jesus returns. It could be problematic then.

peace
Nazaroo

jeremysdemo
October 9th, 2009, 10:09 AM
Mental disability it seems.


Even if they are lying, cheating and ultimately stealing to get it?

They are not that old and are quite capable of supporting themselves. In fact that both have jobs where they get paid under the table.


Lying in a court of law, cheating and stealing from the government gets you into heaven. Meanwhile being transgendered and listening to industrial music sends you to hell.

Yeah your Jesus sounds like a real dirtbag. :thumb:

Explains why another Christian I know is a kleptomaniac.

Really where can I sign up for this?

I understand completely where you are coming from.
My own biological father is married to one woman, (separated for 7 years now) and lives with another, yet he claims to be "Christian".
I have confronted him about this in the past and all I get is excuses, like if he divorces and marries his current girlfriend she will loose her SSI widows benefits, oh and "I can't afford a lawyer", I found him one real cheap tho, no contest, $325 dollars, even offered to pay for half of it, to no avail, he claims he can't afford it, yet you will find him every FRi on payday at the local pub.

I gave him this scripture, Matthew 6:24.

If you truly love your family you will be open with them (regardless of their harsh judgment of your own musical taste and orientation) and give them the words of the One whom they claim to follow.

If after hearing what Jesus said about serving money instead of Him, they chose to do so anyway you can wash your hands clean and dust off your feet and walk away.


keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Nazaroo
October 9th, 2009, 10:27 AM
My own biological father is married to one woman, (separated for 7 years now) and lives with another, yet he claims to be "Christian".
I have confronted him about this in the past and all I get is excuses, like if he divorces and marries his current girlfriend she will loose her SSI widows benefits, oh and "I can't afford a lawyer", I found him one real cheap tho, no contest, $325 dollars, even offered to pay for half of it, to no avail, he claims he can't afford it, yet you will find him every FRi on payday at the local pub.

I gave him this scripture, Matthew 6:24.

...

The problem here is not that you should not judge your father (and you shouldn't, but that's another story), but that you shouldn't judge superficially, or let your own personal involvement cloud your judgement.

Real judges dismiss themselves from cases like this because "conflicting interests".


To deal with this case fairly, you need to go back 400 years, when Erasmus during the Reformation changed the basic rules of "marriage" drastically for the first time in 1600 years. Since that time, it has been a slippery slope, redefining marriage, divorce, and Christian status for the last 400 years.

At this point in time, only 1 out of 1000 "marriages" today could possibly be legitimate according to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Bible.

The rest of all these "marriages" are illegitimate in the first place.

Was your dad or mom a virgin when the got married in the first place? No? Well then guess what: their "marriage" is Biblically invalid. They had previous obligations by God's law, and if you and they don't recognise that, or you don't believe in those legal definitions and values anyway, you've got no case for him "divorcing" one party and "remarrying" another.

All these actions are illegal and wrong. You insisting that he "remarry" avoids the obvious fact that his first marriage isn't a real Biblical marriage at all, and his second isn't either.

You'd be better off joining the Mormons and accepting polygamy under the circumstances, because none of these ad-hoc, make-believe "make your own rules" style "marriages" have any credibility with God or the Bible.

Most modern North American "marriages" are absurd, not just invalid. They are the erratic behaviours of compulsive liars and self-deniers and confused fornicators and adulterers. They have no meaning with God or the Bible.

Its like this: Imagine you come to a meeting in a den of thieves, and some are arguing about a few coins that one stole from the other, which he had stolen from a third bandit. Would God really step in and say, "Oh yes, those coins belong to you."

I think not. He would instead say, "Return ALL this stolen property right now, and never steal again!"

That is the proper solution to all these phoney illegitimate "marriages". Repentance.

Peace
Nazaroo

TomO
October 9th, 2009, 10:55 AM
I have an aunt and uncle that were drug dealers.

Then they became born again Christians.

Now they steal money from the government on a false disability claim and have the nerve to tell me I'm a bad person and deserve Hell.

Perhaps if you were aware of the ultimate standard of what is "Good" you wouldn't have such a hard time accepting that fact. Personally, I console myself with the reality that I am in good company and that HE Loves me anyway. :Plain:

.....just as a side note: Maybe you should reserve judgement on whether or not HE is a dirtbag considering you don't know HIM.....from what I have seen you are basing your opinion of HIM solely on the actions of other "bad people who deserve Hell".:think:

Persephone66
October 9th, 2009, 02:32 PM
All's fair in class warfare. Ask a Jew or a Palestinian. Rules for civilized living between non-hostiles don't apply.
This is not about warfare, it's about lying cheating and stealing for personal gains.


Excellent. Borrow some money from them.

Why? I don't need it.

If that court of law had legitimate authority from God, as through the government (theocracy) set up by Moses, you'd have a legitimate complaint.
I live in America, we have freedom of religion and thankfully do not live in a theocracy.

But the God of the Bible doesn't regard the governments, armies, and unauthorized legal contracts of goyim nations (Gentiles), any more than a wife or daughter has a right to sign a contract without approval from husband or father.
What nonsense is this?

Ask the Big Guy. See if you can sneak something past Him.
I work with this guy that's 6'6", kinda muscular and rides a Harley, you mean him? He's colour-blind, think I may be able to sneak a few things past him, though I don't know why I would need to.

The blame for being transgendered for most people born post-60s will be laid square at the feet of money-grubbing German Pharmaceutical companies and Lesbian feminists who pushed the Pill so hard it poisoned our drinking water.
What? you mean it's not my screwy genetics?



Long ago a great theologian observed:

"The Bible is like a mirror: if a donkey looks into it, a donkey looks back out at him."

You tell me what you think of someone that approves of lying, cheating and stealing. That is the impression you have left me.

Only rich people are kleptomaniacs. - and they aren't Christians by definition. Luke 18:25
She's far from rich, in fact she still owes me money I lent her 2 years ago.

You're finally making sense.
I was being sarcastic you nitwit.

I'd sign up quick, before Jesus returns. It could be problematic then.
Right. Will the man in the moon and that guy in the golden chariot that pulls the sun across the sky be with him?



I understand completely where you are coming from.
My own biological father is married to one woman, (separated for 7 years now) and lives with another, yet he claims to be "Christian".
I have confronted him about this in the past and all I get is excuses, like if he divorces and marries his current girlfriend she will loose her SSI widows benefits, oh and "I can't afford a lawyer", I found him one real cheap tho, no contest, $325 dollars, even offered to pay for half of it, to no avail, he claims he can't afford it, yet you will find him every FRi on payday at the local pub.

I gave him this scripture, Matthew 6:24.

If you truly love your family you will be open with them (regardless of their harsh judgment of your own musical taste and orientation) and give them the words of the One whom they claim to follow.

I do love my family and my klepto friend too, I really wish they would leave their churches. It would be the best thing for them, and you as well. Religion breeds ignorance. Since our earliest days we have tried to understand the world and the cosmos. Where we failed or came up short, we filled in the gaps and discrepancies with blind faith.


If after hearing what Jesus said about serving money instead of Him, they chose to do so anyway you can wash your hands clean and dust off your feet and walk away.
I have told them how I feel about it and why what they are doing is wrong, they believe they will be forgiven.


Perhaps if you were aware of the ultimate standard of what is "Good" you wouldn't have such a hard time accepting that fact. Personally, I console myself with the reality that I am in good company and that HE Loves me anyway. :Plain:
Is lying under oath, cheating and stealing part of that ultimate standard of good?

Being an atheist, I know that I am responsible for my actions and that there are social and moral ramifications for my wrong doings should I choose to do wrong. I live in reality, you sound like a lunatic that cannot separate fantasy from reality.


.....just as a side note: Maybe you should reserve judgement on whether or not HE is a dirtbag considering you don't know HIM.....from what I have seen you are basing your opinion of HIM solely on the actions of other "bad people who deserve Hell".:think:
I keep getting the impression that lying, cheating and stealing is ok from people in this very thread, including yourself, and friends and family. Is murder ok too? Do you think you deserve Hell? That appears to be the case. If so, why hate yourself so much? Why lower yourself? Why not free yourself? Shrug the trapping of religion. Take responsibility for your actions and make your self a good person. Live in a real reality, not some made up one.

jeremysdemo
October 14th, 2009, 06:34 PM
My own biological father is married to one woman, (separated for 7 years now) and lives with another, yet he claims to be "Christian".
I have confronted him about this in the past and all I get is excuses, like if he divorces and marries his current girlfriend she will loose her SSI widows benefits, oh and "I can't afford a lawyer", I found him one real cheap tho, no contest, $325 dollars, even offered to pay for half of it, to no avail, he claims he can't afford it, yet you will find him every FRi on payday at the local pub.

I gave him this scripture, Matthew 6:24.

...The problem here is not that you should not judge your father (and you shouldn't, but that's another story), but that you shouldn't judge superficially, or let your own personal involvement cloud your judgement.

Real judges dismiss themselves from cases like this because "conflicting interests".


To deal with this case fairly, you need to go back 400 years, when Erasmus during the Reformation changed the basic rules of "marriage" drastically for the first time in 1600 years. Since that time, it has been a slippery slope, redefining marriage, divorce, and Christian status for the last 400 years.

At this point in time, only 1 out of 1000 "marriages" today could possibly be legitimate according to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Bible.

The rest of all these "marriages" are illegitimate in the first place.

Was your dad or mom a virgin when the got married in the first place? No? Well then guess what: their "marriage" is Biblically invalid. They had previous obligations by God's law, and if you and they don't recognise that, or you don't believe in those legal definitions and values anyway, you've got no case for him "divorcing" one party and "remarrying" another.

All these actions are illegal and wrong. You insisting that he "remarry" avoids the obvious fact that his first marriage isn't a real Biblical marriage at all, and his second isn't either.

You'd be better off joining the Mormons and accepting polygamy under the circumstances, because none of these ad-hoc, make-believe "make your own rules" style "marriages" have any credibility with God or the Bible.

Most modern North American "marriages" are absurd, not just invalid. They are the erratic behaviours of compulsive liars and self-deniers and confused fornicators and adulterers. They have no meaning with God or the Bible.

Its like this: Imagine you come to a meeting in a den of thieves, and some are arguing about a few coins that one stole from the other, which he had stolen from a third bandit. Would God really step in and say, "Oh yes, those coins belong to you."

I think not. He would instead say, "Return ALL this stolen property right now, and never steal again!"

That is the proper solution to all these phoney illegitimate "marriages". Repentance.

Peace
Nazaroo
That is all very interesting, and I agree that repentance is par for the course.
But rather than redefine what legal marriage is in the 21st century (which my father would love since it let's him of the hook), a simpler approach was taken which was to use scripture to show how we should not serve two masters God and money, since that was the only reason my father has for living in fornication.
Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and right now here in reality in the Western world Caesar is the government and marriage laws are written by it, not by Moses or any Jewish ordinance or biblical theory.

My father speaks with a double mind, he says things like you "that was not a biblical marriage" (about his second wife) but at the same time gives excuses like money, if he truly believed the marriage was invalid (by the principalities laid down by US law which is under God's ultimate authority) than he would need excuses as to why he "can't" get LEGALLY divorced, cause according to him his has been "spiritually" divorced from his second wife for almost a decade since her adultery.

Also your theory as entertaining as it is does not take into effect the clear Jewish tradition of taking your brothers wife if he dies, obviously she would not be a virgin when you married her under "God's law". Matthew 22:28 :think:

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

jeremysdemo
October 14th, 2009, 06:43 PM
I understand completely where you are coming from.
My own biological father is married to one woman, (separated for 7 years now) and lives with another, yet he claims to be "Christian".
I have confronted him about this in the past and all I get is excuses, like if he divorces and marries his current girlfriend she will loose her SSI widows benefits, oh and "I can't afford a lawyer", I found him one real cheap tho, no contest, $325 dollars, even offered to pay for half of it, to no avail, he claims he can't afford it, yet you will find him every FRi on payday at the local pub.

I gave him this scripture, Matthew 6:24.

If you truly love your family you will be open with them (regardless of their harsh judgment of your own musical taste and orientation) and give them the words of the One whom they claim to follow.

I do love my family and my klepto friend too, I really wish they would leave their churches. It would be the best thing for them, and you as well. Religion breeds ignorance. Since our earliest days we have tried to understand the world and the cosmos. Where we failed or came up short, we filled in the gaps and discrepancies with blind faith.


If you truly love your family you will be open with them (regardless of their harsh judgment of your own musical taste and orientation) and give them the words of the One whom they claim to follow.

You were given the scripture of the person your family "claims" to follow, Jesus, about serving God and money.
Let's see if your love is true or if it falls short, whether or not you give them that scripture.

As I said, if they chose to ignore the teachings of the very person they claim to worship than it really doesn't matter what "church" they are going to, they could be part of any country club in the US.
and will have bigger problems than leaving a church or not or wasting there time with religious practices.

IF they are true followers of Y'shua they will do what is right even if it cost them a great deal of their dishonest income, and rely of God to supply their needs, that is if they have any true faith at all.
Print this out and bring it to them, you can tell them I said so, and if they have any problems with it they can come to my church or house and talk to me personally.

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Yazichestvo
October 14th, 2009, 07:46 PM
At this point in time, only 1 out of 1000 "marriages" today could possibly be legitimate according to the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Bible.

The rest of all these "marriages" are illegitimate in the first place.

Was your dad or mom a virgin when the got married in the first place? No? Well then guess what: their "marriage" is Biblically invalid.
Peace
Nazaroo

I'm sure we'd make up for all of those null marriages if fathers still sold their daughters (sometimes more than one) to one man like cattle. The nobility of old-fashioned marriage really escapes me.

As for "Pharmakeia", Rev 18:23, Babylon was famous for "sorcery", the common translation for that word. The association with medicine is derived from an association of healing with benificent magic. Surely you don't regard medicine as the work of the devil like some sort of uneducated medieval witch-hunter, so there's no real point int that.

As for drinking, do you really imagine that the production of ethanol in beer or wine equates to "casting a spell"? People who made the same connection you do seem to think so;

http://www.pharmakia.org/

Am I "communing with the spirits" if I drink? I am in no way ridiculing such a claim, since even the ancients spoke of a spirit inhabiting the drinker, but do you make the same connection to witchcraft as these people?

Desert Reign
October 15th, 2009, 07:40 AM
I guess a possible answer to this question is that drugs were used mainly in religious contexts in the ancient world.

So perhaps the term drug dealing is a little misleading as is likewise the term sorcery. I think Nazaroo has given enough evidence to show that it definitely does relate to drugs but the term drug dealing only conjures up modern ideas of purely recreational use and loses the obvious connection to pagan ritual.

But in any case, I do not doubt Nazaroo's attention to holiness and his desire to see a church that is set apart from the world. It is all too easy for the church to be moulded by the world. I am not sure if I would follow Nazaroo's particular interpretation of that but I nevertheless find his attention to holiness (not lawkeeping by the way) reassuring.

Nazaroo
October 22nd, 2009, 12:10 AM
I'm sure we'd make up for all of those null marriages if fathers still sold their daughters (sometimes more than one) to one man like cattle. The nobility of old-fashioned marriage really escapes me.


Its easy to judge ancient cultures superficially. In those days, "outside" was forest and jungle, and between city-states lived bandits and marauding armies. It goes without saying there was no "welfare system", except your family. Any viable future meant connection to men of power with defensible fortifications, farms and vineyards.

The Nobility of Medieval marriage (arranged or not) was developed by Christians, and the new 'rights' and respect granted women came through Christian advances.





As for "Pharmakeia", Rev 18:23, Babylon was famous for "sorcery", the common translation for that word. The association with medicine is derived from an association of healing with benificent magic.


Your thought is unfocussed. I can't follow what you want to do with this.



Surely you don't regard medicine as the work of the devil like some sort of uneducated medieval witch-hunter, so there's no real point int that.


I do believe much of modern medicine is part of a large corporate complex similar to the Military Industrial Complex, a very evil and destructive force, completely out of control in the 21st century.




As for drinking, do you really imagine that the production of ethanol in beer or wine equates to "casting a spell"?

Am I "communing with the spirits" if I drink? I am in no way ridiculing such a claim, since even the ancients spoke of a spirit inhabiting the drinker, but do you make the same connection to witchcraft as these people?

I personally DO believe that ingesting drugs makes one vulnerable to demonic forces, which are real. I have had enough personal and clinical experience to arrive at that conclusion as a scientist.

The "witchcraft" connection is not the main point however. Drugs do severe damage to people with or without demonic influence.

But anyone foolish enough to experiment with them for long is fully aware of demonic forces which are attracted to such victims.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
October 22nd, 2009, 12:12 AM
I guess a possible answer to this question is that drugs were used mainly in religious contexts in the ancient world.

So perhaps the term drug dealing is a little misleading as is likewise the term sorcery. I think Nazaroo has given enough evidence to show that it definitely does relate to drugs but the term drug dealing only conjures up modern ideas of purely recreational use and loses the obvious connection to pagan ritual.

But in any case, I do not doubt Nazaroo's attention to holiness and his desire to see a church that is set apart from the world. It is all too easy for the church to be moulded by the world. I am not sure if I would follow Nazaroo's particular interpretation of that but I nevertheless find his attention to holiness (not lawkeeping by the way) reassuring.

I appreciate your constructive comments.

Peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
November 11th, 2009, 09:19 AM
Great news today: (Nov 11, 2009)

On our local Christian radio station, Life 100.3 (Barrie, Ont), (89.3 PTBO etc.)

The morning program, Walk in the Word with James McDonald,

gave a great discussion on alcohol, and its devastating cost to society.
He will give PART II tomorrow morning.

This speaker is enthusiastic and knowledgeable. Excellent talk, I will try to get the CD and give some excerpts.

Peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
November 12th, 2009, 10:10 AM
I found a link to James MacDonald's preaching resources and broadcasts:

http://walkintheword.com/CoolStuff.aspx

Perhaps this can be helpful to others trying to deal with the drinking issue.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
January 14th, 2010, 06:35 AM
Here is the Youtube link to the Pat Roberston interview with

Brian Welch ("Head") from the rock band Korn.

His story of being delivered from drugs is quite interesting, especially since although he was involved with many drugs, the alcoholism was always the central hook which kept him enslaved, until he prayed to Jesus directly.

Many people less famous have similar stories of deliverance.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
January 21st, 2010, 07:54 PM
Further substanciation that alcohol is in fact a drug and NOT a food, and has no food value is provided by many commercial and scientific instrument makers;

Basic facts of alcohol intoxication are explaned in plain language here:

http://www.intox.com/about_alcohol.asp

http://www.chemcases.com/alcohol/alc-06.htm

http://health.howstuffworks.com/alcohol2.htm

http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ex-Ga/Fermentation.html

enjoy.
Nazaroo

jeremysdemo
January 21st, 2010, 08:02 PM
I for one found your rebuttal and general response to the scriptures and facts in my last post both genius and awe inspiring....

keep up the good work! (speaking to the spambot that is running the thread discussion) :)

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Nazaroo
January 22nd, 2010, 09:37 AM
I for one found your rebuttal and general response to the scriptures and facts in my last post both genius and awe inspiring....

keep up the good work! (speaking to the spambot that is running the thread discussion) :)

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Not sure if your are being ironic again, but I appreciate your humour in any case.

Marriage really is a mess in the 21st century, and there are no simple solutions to complex and probably illegal relationships which have developed for generations without serious Biblical guidance.

It may be that God will overlook and forgive the mess as it stands, and honour the intent of the heart in many cases, as opposed to the letter of the Law.

However, it is clear from Jesus' teaching in the NT that the ideal relationship is monogamy, virginity, and lifetime commitment for the purpose of becoming 'one flesh', namely having children among other things.

Friendships are friendships; marriage is a unique institution under the guidance of God's directions, and not our own invention.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
February 16th, 2010, 07:11 PM
Examining Old Dictionaries

Older dictionaries and lexicons are not always that useful, in comparison to the latest scholarly versions. This is because our knowledge of NT Greek has expanded dramatically in the last 120 years.

Before that time, European scholars were labouring under some false assumptions they had taken from their knowledge of Classical (Attic and Doric) Greek. (There is a 500 year difference between Classical Greek and Koine (NT) Greek.

Nonetheless, older works are valuable in that they give us knowledge of the state of knowledge itself at earlier times.

One great example are the entries found in Edward Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (Andover, 1825). This work clearly shows that Western English scholars knew as far back as the 1820's that "pharmakeia" carried the meaning of "DRUG DEALER": (pg 797) -

_________________________________

φαρμακεια, -ας, η, (φαρμακον; -- medicine, a dose of medicine , see Xen. Mem. IV 2.17, -- a poison, [Lat.] [I]veneficium, Polyb. VI. 13.4)
In N.T. --[I] incantation, magic art, sorcery, Gal. 5:20, Rev. 9:21, 18:23.
So Sept. [the LXX] for: לַֽחֲכָמִים וְ]לַֽמְכַשְּׁפִים] in Exod. 7:11.
& for כְּשָׁפַיִךְ [Strong's 3785: 'Kesheph', "your sorceries"(?)] in Isa. 47:9, [& Isa. 47:12.]
-- Herodot. VII. 114. So [Lat.] veneficium, Cicero in Catil. II.1.

φαρμακευς, -εως, ο, (written also φαρμακος and φραρμακευτης, cf. Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 316. pp. one who prepares drugs; )
In N.T. -- an enchanter, magician, sorcerer, Acts 21:8 in some editions where others read φαρμακος . Lucian. [I]Dial. Deor XIII. 1.

φαρμακος, -ou, o, i.q. φαρμακευς q.v. - Rev. 21:8, 22:15.
_________________________________


Here Robinson dutifully lists the popular renderings of these words in English NT translations, but he also demonstrates that scholars were well aware that almost all citings in contemporary literature and classical literature show φαρμακευς to mean drug-dealer, and φαρμακεια to mean drug-dealing or sales of medicine.

This is the very thing we should expect. Robinson and other 18th century scholars were faced with the difficult task of realising that many common understandings about the language of the NT were in fact not knowledge-based at all, but were rather naive notions about the meanings of words, borne out of the Middle Ages.

It wasn't until the 1870s that scholars felt safe challenging cherished notions about the NT and doctrine. Before that, they could be arrested, fired from their posts in churches and universities, and left to starve in a society that was very bigotted and vindictive, and afraid of any idea that appeared to be a 'heresy'.

So scholars walked a diplomatic course of providing important information, while leaving recommendations unspoken.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
February 19th, 2010, 01:58 AM
Its not only compilers of dictionaries and grammars, or commentators who acknowledge the meaning of "pharmakeia" to be a reference to drugs:

Even translators of the NT have brought attention to this important point.

The NKJV follows the KJV closely, but adds the following important footnote to Rev. 9:21:


'And they did not repent of their murders or their sorceries (1) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=NKJV&x=0&y=0&b=Rev&c=9&v=1#fnt/21_2) or their sexual immorality or their thefts.'
_______________________________________

(9:21) (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?t=NKJV&x=0&y=0&b=Rev&c=9&v=1#fnv/21_2) NU-Text and M-Text read drugs.



It is clear that many modern scholars have observed this important connotation regarding the Greek vocabulary in these key places of prophecy.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
February 25th, 2010, 01:14 AM
Out in the free world is not the only place where drugs and alcohol wreak violence and destruction.

In prison, the single most important factor in violent incidents and gang behaviour is drug dealing, tobacco, and making bootleg liquor in jail. These "commodities" virtually drive the prison economy and perpetuate injustice and violence in a mafia-like atmosphere of fear and hate.

The drugs amplify emotional disturbances, and exaggerate offences, as well as swell pride and arrogance to the point of criminal violence, just as in ancient Sodom.

"...till there was no remedy." (2nd Chron. 36:16)

peace
Nazaroo

yeshuaslavejeff
February 28th, 2010, 07:12 PM
... ___ ...

Nazaroo
March 3rd, 2010, 07:32 AM
remember
"During the Middle Ages the Church became the largest manufacturer and supplier of the most popular drug on earth: ALCOHOL. The church sold out to the drug dealing industry, and God’s Word was intentionally kept obscure."
...
i.e. not just to a drug, but to the drug dealing industry.... many millions have died as a result of the massive deception, corruption, and total lies they speak.

Yes, I am total agreement that this scandalous piece of recent history actually happened.

Our North American/European culture is still in a state of dyslexia and denial about alcohol. People just refuse to recognize it as a drug, or admit that it is the worst, most common drug problem known to modern mankind.

This is one of the main reasons that the "Roman Catholic church" and other mainstream churches simply cannot be trusted to teach on this issue. They not only turn a blind eye to alcoholism and its devastating effect to society, they aid and abet the drug dealers and drug dealing industry by actively promoting alcohol.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
March 8th, 2010, 02:28 PM
An Account of the Fallout from the Drug-War in America


After 20 years of the "war on drugs", some horrific statistics are now available.

For instance, the number of MOTHERS of children now incarcerated in prison for drugs has reached over 100,000 in the USA, an increase of over 400% in twenty years.

In real terms, this means almost half a million children are growing up without the single most important care-giver in their lives, their own mother. These kids have a huge risk of falling directly back into the "Drug Culture" and being swallowed up in drug-abuse and fornication, and criminal involvement.

The American prison system is clearly not a solution by itself, and simply impoverishes and destroys families. It is however a multi-billion dollar industry, and is simply ever-expanding. The "Drug War" is good business for those who profit by its tragedies, and prisons are a large employer now, in a way of life totally unnatural to both the inmates and guards, who are BOTH prisoners, with impoverished quality of life.

Its up to Christians (who else will help?) to pick up the pieces of these wrecked lives and try to save these families, mothers and children.

We have to start by giving a loud and certain message against recreational drug abuse, ESPECIALLY ALCOHOL, the single most popular drug wreaking the most havoc in North American life.

Give it up, and tell people why!

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
March 17th, 2010, 01:34 PM
Here is a disturbing finding from a scientific study of alcohol and unnatural deaths, not done by the Temperance Union, or religious fanatics, but by doctors in Sweden.



Friday, 14 July, 2000, 23:51 GMT 00:51 UK


Alcohol linked to thousands of deaths

Drink is blamed for many suicides, murders and falls


Almost half of all unnatural deaths are related to alcohol, a study has found. Research carried out by doctors in Sweden suggests that 44% deaths cause by accidents or other events are linked to drinking.
These include deaths from suicide, falls, traffic injuries, asphyxia, intoxication and murder are linked to drinking.
The doctors examined deaths in Sweden over a five-year period. They divided deaths into natural - those that were caused by disease or illness - and unnatural - those that were event-related.
They found that 29% all unnatural deaths were associated with alcohol.
However, they estimated that the figure may be as high as 44% and may be even higher in countries with 'softer' alcohol laws than Sweden.


Dangers and risks
Anders Eriksson, professor of forensic medicine at Sweden's Umea University, said: "The sober person does not take the same risks and, to some extent, can avoid dangers and risks."
He added: "Alcohol also blurs your mind and it is well known that both self-destructive behaviour and aggression towards other people is much higher under the influence of alcohol than during sobriety."
Professor Eriksson said the study showed that alcohol-related deaths did not just concern traffic incidents.

"The sober person does not take the same risks"

Prof Anders Erikkson, Umea University

"The study demonstrates that alcohol is a problem not only when it comes to drunk driving and traffic deaths, but in a significant number of all unnatural deaths.
"This means that you run a greater risk in almost all aspects when you are under the influence of alcohol."
The Institute of Alcohol Studies, in Cambridgeshire, said: "This goes to show that alcohol is a far wider problem than the government recognises.
"Quite clearly, it raises questions about what on earth the government is doing in not lowering the drink driving limit."
Sue Boon, assistant director of Alcohol Concern, said she was not surprised by the findings.
"It does seem to correlate quite closely with what is going on in the UK. For instance 65% of suicide attempts are linked to alcohol and eight out of 10 people who present themselves at A&E at peak times have had an accident which can be linked with alcohol.
"We are not really surprised and that is why Alcohol Concern is pushing the government to publish a national alcohol strategy to address these problems."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/833483.stm

Nazaroo
April 17th, 2010, 09:07 PM
Often the use of marijuana is presented as a harmless recreation, picked on by vested interests (anti-hemp rope makers, opposing countercultures).

What is glossed over in this presentation is the horrific and violent carnage just south of the American border, sustained by the marijuana trade.

As one Mexican Cartel Hitman expressed it, "Its all about the bridge: (meaning the US/Mexican border). As long as the gringos buy it, the killing will go on and on. Today 20, tomorrow 200."

There are about four major drug cartels south of the US border, one centered at Tiajuana (West coast), on in central Mexico (the jungle grow-ops), and two more in the East, around Mexico-City etc.

These competing gangs slay ordinary Mexican citizens, including women and children, by the busload, just to instill terror in both the people and the authorities, so that no one will help bust them.

They routinely chop off people's heads, machete them to death, and plant bullets in seven-year old children, in order to continue to grow and supply wealthy Americans with plenty of "Cheech & Chong" hooch.

All the while, the stupid Americans finance a reign of terror upon the poor, the ordinary farmers, and even school children, while passing out on their couches to assinine rock tunes.

"Peace, peace, when there is no peace..."

Nazaroo
April 23rd, 2010, 11:10 PM
Today they found a man shot to death in Toronto on his porch.

He had no criminal record, but was known to police.

Turns out he was running a "grow-op" out of his house, growing thousands of dollars of Marijuana.

Its unknown who shot him, either rival gangs, or extortionists, or the special police 'hit squad'. It really doesn't matter. The point is that violence always follows illegal drugs, regardless of the kind. Its the nature of all illegal businesses and criminal activities, that you can't turn to the police for protection obviously, and so, the person naturally associates with other criminals.

Handguns seem to be as common as baseball bats when drugs are around. And both guilty and innocent people are constantly getting hurt or killed.

Injustice is also multiplied throughout the land when various illegal activities are just ignored or the law is not enforced with fairness and mercy.

The ideal all mankind should strive for is given in the example of the Christian community when it is obedient to Christ.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
April 30th, 2010, 11:31 AM
The latest figures are so high that they stagger the imagination, and seem surreal:

Now it has been catalogued that about 22,000 deaths have been attributed to the Drug trade in Mexico since 2006.

Thats right, not 2,000, and not 1976.

22,000 people, mostly innocents, have been killed since 2006, in relation to the drug dealing industry!

It absolutely must be stopped, and stopped by international cooperation, because the Mexican government and army cannot do so.

Just today, drug dealers crossed the border and brazenly murdered inside the US..

The major Mexican crop? Marijuana. the market? the USA.

Its what pot smoking is really all about. mass murder.


Nazaroo

Paulos
April 30th, 2010, 06:00 PM
22,000 people, mostly innocents, have been killed since 2006, in relation to the drug dealing industry!

It absolutely must be stopped, and stopped by international cooperation, because the Mexican government and army cannot do so.

Just today, drug dealers crossed the border and brazenly murdered inside the US..

The major Mexican crop? Marijuana. the market? the USA.

Its what pot smoking is really all about. mass murder.


Nazaroo

The only way to stop marijuana-related drug crime is to legalize and regulate it, the same way we do with other drugs like alcohol, tobacco, etc...

Nazaroo
May 1st, 2010, 04:31 PM
The only way to stop marijuana-related drug crime is to legalize and regulate it, the same way we do with other drugs like alcohol, tobacco, etc...

This is now an old argument, but I don't think the political will is there to follow up on this experiment.

While people in the US are still talking about legalization, countries that have tried it are now talking about making it illegal again, and regulating it more heavily, along with prostitution (such as the Netherland countries).

How would that magically end the reign of terror raging right now in Mexico?

With 20,000 dead and thousands more living in fear and terror, what will legalizing Marijuana in the USA do to break the drug-cartels and violent gangs ruling the countryside?

I see no solution in your pipe-dream...



peace
Nazaroo.

yeshuaslavejeff
May 1st, 2010, 05:08 PM
no solution is allowed politically. it is not even permitted to publicize much.
Population, United States

307,006,550 - Jul 2009
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division
Disclaimer
Population, Mexico

106,350,434 - 2008
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators
Disclaimer

..
...
...
not an exact match or comparison, but look at the huge difference -
in the u.s.a. out of 307,006,550 people let's say 1,000,000 are women.
and at least
1 out of 3 women die due to the drug dealers/pharmakea ...
that makes 330,000 women PLUS MEN AND CHILDREN....
while
in mexico ONLY 22,000 total, women men and children
have died due to the drug dealers (it is actually a lot higher, i know, but that's what they advertise)....

.
that's 333,333 per 307,000,000 roughly in the u.s.a. (only counting women)
vs
22,000 per 106,000,000 roughly counting all people
or
adjusting to 66,000 per 300,000,000 for the ratio
shows
the death rate due to drug lords/pharmakea in the usa is at least or seems 5 TIMES that of mexico....
sobering, eh?
.
.
p.s. the actual pain, suffering and death due to pharmakea is many many times what is advertised. it is SOOOO FARRRR from politically allowed you will never see it in popular print.

Paulos
May 1st, 2010, 07:12 PM
This is now an old argument, but I don't think the political will is there to follow up on this experiment.

Public opinion polls currently stand at 44% in favor of legalization. The political will may not be there quite yet, but the trend is moving in favor of legalization:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/u.s.-support-legalizing-marijuana-reaches-new-high.aspx

I am sure that within the next 5-10 years, the majority will shift in favor of legalization.


How would that magically end the reign of terror raging right now in Mexico? With 20,000 dead and thousands more living in fear and terror, what will legalizing Marijuana in the USA do to break the drug-cartels and violent gangs ruling the countryside?

Legalizing marijuana would not end "the reign of terror raging right now in Mexico", but what it would do is take a huge bite out of their profits, and slashing their income would cut back on their ability to commit crime.


I see no solution in your pipe-dream...

My solution is not a pipe-dream, it is reality. Your solution is also not a pipe-dream, it is a nightmare. Your solution is to continue the failed policy that we have been practicing for decades. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result. It's time to stop this insanity and legalize marijuana.

We've already been through this with the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition was such an unmitigated disaster that alcohol was legalized again. We learned our lesson with alcohol, but for some reason, we insist on making the same mistake with marijuana even though by any standard of measure, marijuana is a less harmful substance to society than alcohol! The hypocrisy of it all...

Nazaroo
May 1st, 2010, 09:00 PM
Public opinion polls currently stand at 44% in favor of legalization. The political will may not be there quite yet, but the trend is moving in favor of legalization:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123728/u.s.-support-legalizing-marijuana-reaches-new-high.aspx

I am sure that within the next 5-10 years, the majority will shift in favor of legalization.


This is no argument in favour of your policy.

In Sodom the populace became complacent, approving, and finally participants in whoredom, rape, sodomy, and murder.

The majority vote didn't make it ok with God.






Legalizing marijuana would not end "the reign of terror raging right now in Mexico", but what it would do is take a huge bite out of their profits, and slashing their income would cut back on their ability to commit crime.
This is the pipe-dream part.

The gangs are an entrenched cultural phenomenom. They will not be "starved" away by lack of funds. Mexico has always been in poverty, and full of violence.

There are solutions, like heavy policing, draconian gun laws and zero-tolerance, but they can't be implemented without money.





My solution is not a pipe-dream, it is reality.

Your solution is also not a pipe-dream, it is a nightmare. Your solution is to continue the failed policy that we have been practicing for decades. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result. It's time to stop this insanity and legalize marijuana.
You are mistaken on two important fronts:

(1) No one will ever "legalize" marijuana. They didn't legalize drinking or gambling either. They REGULATED it, and now control it. The violence also is controlled, but not the social damages.

Gambling is now run for instance by the Government in Canada, or rather is regulated by it. But the mafias still run the now "legal" gambling casinos, and these gangs, both of natives, and the government are still gangs, pushing gambling and drinking. Your ideal "solution" has multiplied the organized crime problem by a thousand fold since the days of the Chicago 1920s.

(2) Regulating weed will not remove any problems, or "bankrupt" organized crime. It thrives stronger than ever, and is now more powerful and sophisticated than most govenments.




We've already been through this with the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition was such an unmitigated disaster that alcohol was legalized again. We learned our lesson with alcohol, but for some reason, we insist on making the same mistake with marijuana even though by any standard of measure, marijuana is a less harmful substance to society than alcohol! The hypocrisy of it all...(1) You need to re-read history. Prohibition was a success. People lived sober productive lives, and industry and the economy flourished under honesty and integrity.
What happened with gangs in the 1920s had to do with people refusing to stop their evil ways, and had to do with free access to "Tommy-guns" (another incredible catastrophe), and with the failure of the US army to step in and simply shut down the crooks. A 'zero-tolerance' policy was never implemented, but if it had been, we'd have a different world.
ALcohol was "legalized" (read: Regulated) when a group of mobsters in the government decided they wanted to make some money. There was no crisis that required the repeal of prohibition. It was the political will of a bunch of gangsters that caused the repeal of prohibition.


(2) What should have happened is that a president with balls should have called in the army and shot the gangsters dead.
Things would have been quiet in Chicago for another 100 years.

(3) Its not smoking pot that is the biggest danger, its organized crime. You have no solution at all for this. So don't pretend legalizing marijuana has any relevance to crime today.

(4) My solution would not have looked anything like historical "prohibition". Nor would I vote for current policies regarding law enforcement and drugs. So you don't know what you're talking about. But about my own solutions, I do know what I would want: I would take the army and round up all known drug dealers, and have them publicly executed on television. And we'd have peace from drug-dealing for a hundred years.

(5) You're right, there was some hypocrisy, and there's more of it now. I'd smash all liquor operations, and destroy all of it. I wouldn't have political or military leaders that used drugs, including alcohol. It would be a mandatory requirement for police, army, emergency services, and government to be Nazarites. No Nazarite, no job. And no hypocrisy.

peace
Nazaroo

DaSoji1
May 1st, 2010, 09:52 PM
Nice post OP...i always figured drug dealing was a sin, Just for the simple fact that u are selling your brother his own downfall & keeping him addicted to it...i didnt know it was actually in scripture though...I have ALOT more to read.

Paulos
May 2nd, 2010, 09:51 AM
This is no argument in favour of your policy.

I didn't say that the trend in public opinion regarding marijuana legalization was an argument in favor of the policy. I simply stated it as a fact that the trend is heading in favor of legalization.


In Sodom the populace became complacent, approving, and finally participants in whoredom, rape, sodomy, and murder.

The majority vote didn't make it ok with God.

How can you slide from discussing marijuana policy directly into "whoredom, rape, sodomy, and murder"? Those subjects are mutually exclusive. I do not think that you are being rational with that comment.

Paulos
May 2nd, 2010, 11:15 AM
The Greek word translated as "wine" in the New Testament is pronounced oy-nos which means wine, not grape juice. We know that because the word is used where people are warned not to drink to excess and get drunk from it. No such warning would be necessary if it were grape juice:


"And be not drunk with wine [oy-nos], wherein is excess." (Ephesians 5:18 KJV)
"Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine [oy-nos]." (1 Timothy 3:8 KJV)

The phrase "not given to much wine" implies that it is OK to drink a little wine, and in fact, in Paul told Timothy to "use a little wine":


"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oy-nos] for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23)

I don't think that it would have been necessary for Paul to give Timothy permission to drink unfermented grape juice.

Source: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20041126.htm

Nazaroo
May 2nd, 2010, 01:56 PM
How can you slide from discussing marijuana policy directly into "whoredom, rape, sodomy, and murder"? Those subjects are mutually exclusive. I do not think that you are being rational with that comment.

Everybody knows that recreational drug use (alchohol and pot) are all about getting some chick's pants off and having sex, and for women its about having an excuse for fornication, as well as getting high.

Sex is big business, and the misdirected and unlawful indulgence in the sex-drive is what drives all this insanity and damage.

To pretend otherwise, is just denial.

Alcohol leads to whoredom, by lowering inhibitions and giving excuse. For example, ask any drunk driver why he did it: "I was drunk, man. sorry."

Why defend marijuana, or recreational drug use? Are you going to argue that it is "healthy", "necessary", "normal"?

How many monkeys, cows, horses, dogs, whales use recreational drugs?

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
May 2nd, 2010, 02:10 PM
The Greek word translated as "wine" in the New Testament is pronounced oy-nos which means wine, not grape juice. We know that because the word is used where people are warned not to drink to excess and get drunk from it. No such warning would be necessary if it were grape juice.


(1) You have misread the claim.

Words were not scientifically strictly defined in Jesus' day, there wasn't even a strict spelling convention. Just check the thousands of papyri from the period.

Because the word οινος "oinos" alone was ambiguous, and was used for both fermented and unfermented juices, only the context would determine what was meant. When the context adequately determines the meaning, no other adjectives are required. The examples you gave give a context, and make clear that in those cases an alcoholic fermented beverage was referenced.

In other cases, an adjective is required, namely "new wine" (neos oinos) = Fresh Juice, and "old wine" = fermented juice. When both types of oinos are referenced in the same sentence or discussion, the adjective is required, to distinguish them.

A good example of the necessity of adjectives and the double-meaning of οινος is in Jesus' discussion of both types of oinos found in Matthew 9:17, where "new wine" clearly means unfermented juice, and "old wine" means fermented juice.

"Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst (from fermentation!), the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved (from damage due to fermentation!)."
Everyone knows, fermentation naturally stops, because the yeast dies from alcohol poisoning (just like people do). New juice placed in a used wineskin will ferment because of the presence of yeast. In a new clean container, without yeast contamination, it will not ferment and burst the skin.

Also, "old wine" (fully fermented juice) will not burst skins, since yeast cannot grow in a solution of 6-10% alcohol.



(2) You have made a logical non-sequiter.

Just because a word can mean "fermented wine", does not mean it always does.


(3) You have misunderstood Paul's advice to Timothy.



and in fact, in Paul told Timothy to "use a little wine":
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine [oy-nos] for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23)I don't think that it would have been necessary for Paul to give Timothy permission to drink unfermented grape juice.Paul wasn't giving Timothy permission to drink alcoholic beverages. He was prescribing a treatment for a medical condition to an individual, with whom he had personal intimate knowledge.

Everyone knows you can't indiscriminately take drug prescriptions meant for someone else, especially without knowing the exact nature of their illness. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, as strong as many common depressants and narcotics.

But your logic again here begs the question. For Paul's suggestion could indeed indicate a prior policy or instruction was in place, namely the 20 previous times Paul and others had publicly instructed Christians to "Be sober!".

What you think is irrelevant. We must take examples like this as indications of what the real ideological and religious practice and belief really was, not what you wish it was.

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 2nd, 2010, 02:17 PM
Paul wasn't giving Timothy permission to drink alcoholic beverages.

Why would it have been necessary for Paul to give Timothy permission to drink unfermented grape juice?

Nazaroo
May 2nd, 2010, 02:33 PM
Why would it have been necessary for Paul to give Timothy permission to drink unfermented grape juice?

He wasn't. You have misread the passage. Paul is prescribing medicine for an illness, not giving "permission" to Timothy, an adult, to indulge.

Paulos
May 2nd, 2010, 03:31 PM
He wasn't. You have misread the passage. Paul is prescribing medicine for an illness, not giving "permission" to Timothy, an adult, to indulge.

I didn't use the word "indulge", and I don't know where you got the idea that I did. Paul specifically states, "a little wine". "A little" of something does not exactly qualify as an "indulgence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indulge)".

Do you agree that Paul was referring to fermented (alcoholic) wine in 1 Timothy 5:23?

Paulos
May 2nd, 2010, 04:39 PM
Its what pot smoking is really all about. mass murder.

Nonsense. Most people who smoke pot want nothing whatsoever to do with mass murder or any other sort of crime or violence. In certain parts of the country it is legal to possess small amounts of marijuana and to grow a limited amount of plants for personal use. A growing list of states are also legalizing marijuana for medical use. These people want nothing to do with crime of any kind, let alone mass murder!


Everybody knows that recreational drug use (alchohol and pot) are all about getting some chick's pants off and having sex, and for women its about having an excuse for fornication, as well as getting high.

What you suggest here is certainly true with many people, but it is not true with many other people. You make an awful lot of incredibly negative blanket generalizations and assumptions about other peoples' motivations.


Why defend marijuana, or recreational drug use? Are you going to argue that it is "healthy", "necessary", "normal"?

What is really healthy, necessary, and normal in a civil society is allowing people the freedom to make their own decisions in that regard. You are free to abstain if you so choose. Other people are (or should be) free to partake within regulations, if they so choose. It's called freedom of choice.


How many monkeys, cows, horses, dogs, whales use recreational drugs?

Haven't you ever seen a cat go into an intoxicated stupor over catnip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepeta)?

Take a look:

http://www.33mag.com/fr/magazine/g33k/drunken-animals-fermented-fruit-fiends-to-beer-bears

Nazaroo
May 3rd, 2010, 02:24 AM
I didn't use the word "indulge", and I don't know where you got the idea that I did. Paul specifically states, "a little wine". "A little" of something does not exactly qualify as an "indulgence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indulge)".

Do you agree that Paul was referring to fermented (alcoholic) wine in 1 Timothy 5:23?


No. It refers to grape juice. Paul specifically states "oinos", not modern alcoholic wines at 10-20% alcohol by volume, something unknown in Jesus' day.

Paul was recommending that Timothy relax his Nazarite vows in order to treat his stomach, probably an ulcer, now known to be caused by bacteria (from unclean foods). Paul and most other early (Jewish) Christians continued to take Nazarite vows (Numbers 6) in support of the temple and Jewish practice (see Acts).

Anyone familiar with ulcers knows that alcohol is devastating and sometimes fatal to those with serious ulcers. We know Timothy's illness was serious, because Paul was so concerned.

If Paul had prescribed alcohol for Timothy's ulcer, it would have been a horrific mistake. If you think he did, then you should concede it was bad advice, and not use this scripture to recommend alcohol, but rather to dis-recommend Paul.

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 8th, 2010, 01:07 PM
A good example of the necessity of adjectives and the double-meaning of οινος is in Jesus' discussion of both types of oinos found in Matthew 9:17, where "new wine" clearly means unfermented juice, and "old wine" means fermented juice.

"Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst (from fermentation!), the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved (from damage due to fermentation!)."


"New wine" did not mean unfermented grape juice. Wine is wine, whether it is new or aged. The only difference between new wine and aged wine in the biblical context was its strength, but new wine was still capable of getting people drunk if they drank enough of it, as the book of Acts states:


Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. (Acts 2:13)

The fact that "new wine" was said to cause drunkenness is proof that it too was fermented to some degree.

Furthermore, new wine was not poured into new wineskins in order to keep the new wine from fermenting and bursting the skin, as you claim. New wine was put into new wineskins because new wineskins were elastic and would stretch, hence new wine was placed into new wineskins in order to accommodate the fermentation process, not to prevent it from happening.


Everyone knows, fermentation naturally stops, because the yeast dies from alcohol poisoning (just like people do). New juice placed in a used wineskin will ferment because of the presence of yeast. In a new clean container, without yeast contamination, it will not ferment and burst the skin.

You seem to have a lack of understanding of both scripture and the science behind fermentation. The Israelites, like all ancient peoples, did not understand the process of fermentation. They simply pressed the grapes, allowing the juice to run off into cisterns. They allowed the juice to settle and eventually they stored the juice in bottles. Fermentation occurred naturally. They did not know that it was caused by yeast, and they did not add yeast to grape juice in order to cause it to ferment. The fermentation process was not understood until the late 19th century, when Louis Pasteur observed the fermentation process under a microscope.

Naturally-occuring amounts of yeast are invisible to the naked eye. (In fact, it is common for household dust to contain yeast spores.) It just so happens that there is enough invisible, naturally occurring yeast on the skins of grapes to cause fermentation. The moment the grape is crushed, fermentation begins as the juice comes in contact with the natural "wild" yeasts on the grape skin. The yeasts convert the sugar in the grape juice to alcohol and release carbon dioxide and water. Fermentation preserves the juice, allowing it to be stored for long periods without spoiling. (Reference (http://www.prohibitionhangover.com/israelwine.html))

Keep in mind that the Israelites did not have refrigeration, pasteurization, or vacuum-sealed containers with which to store fresh grape juice for long periods of time. Grapes are perishable. Their skins are thin. Lacking refrigeration, they rot quickly once harvested in a hot climate. Grapes were not an item that could be easily transported, at least not until they were turned into wine or raisins. Farmers did the sensible thing: they crushed their grapes immediately after harvest and the juice naturally fermented into wine, which is what preserved it. In other words, fermentation was the only process by which the Israelites (and all other ancient peoples) could store the liquid for extended periods of time without spoilage.

Jesus drew a metaphor that every Israelite farmer understood: they knew that wineskins expand when new wine is poured in. They didn’t understand that the expansion was from carbon dioxide (a byproduct of fermentation), but they knew that a new wineskin was flexible and could expand. An old wineskin was already stretched, so pouring in new wine caused it to burst as the juice fermented. Jesus clearly knew a thing or two about wine.

You may be wondering how the Israelites knew about leavening bread if they didn't know about yeast. After all, didn't they have to add yeast to their bread in order to make it rise, or withhold yeast in order to make unleavened bread? The answer is no, they didn't use yeast--well, not directly, so far as they were aware. What they used was something called "leavening". And what was leavening? Leavening was nothing more than a small lump of aged dough. That's it! You see, as dough is left out to age, the fermentation process kicks in through the naturally occurring yeasts contained in the dough. A small lump of aged dough was enough to mix into a large batch of fresh dough and cause it to rise when heated.

Interestingly, no leavened foods are allowed at Passover, though alcoholic wine is. The ancient Jews had no understanding that leavened bread and wine are linked through yeasts. The difference is that leavening must be added to bread for it to rise; for wine, natural yeasts are already on the grape skins, and these start fermenting when the grape is crushed.

If you wish to insist that Jesus' wine at the Last Supper was somehow unfermented, consider this: the grape harvest was six months earlier. There was no possible way for grape juice to be available at Passover without fermentation getting in the way, as fresh grape juice won’t last that long. (Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch didn’t invent the pasteurization process to create “unfermented wine” until 1869. That’s when Welch’s Grape Juice was born, and he did it specifically so Protestants could have grape juice at communion.) Jesus’s wine was fermented wine.


Also, "old wine" (fully fermented juice) will not burst skins, since yeast cannot grow in a solution of 6-10% alcohol.

Your claim that yeast "cannot grow in a solution of 6-10% alcohol" is inaccurate. Yeasts can thrive and reproduce in a concentration of up to 14% alcohol by volume. It is only in the recent decades of our lifetime that strains of yeast have been developed that can reproduce in solutions of up to 25% alcohol by volume.


[Oinos] refers to grape juice. Paul specifically states "oinos", not modern alcoholic wines at 10-20% alcohol by volume, something unknown in Jesus' day.

As I've already noted, yeasts function normally in up to 14% alcohol by volume, so "old" wine with up to 14% alcohol would have been the norm even in Jesus' day.

Besides which, in Ephesians 5:18 Paul stated, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess". Referring to wine in the Greek, Paul used the word "oinos". It is hardly possible for one to get drunk on grape juice.


Paul was recommending that Timothy relax his Nazarite vows in order to treat his stomach, probably an ulcer, now known to be caused by bacteria (from unclean foods).

Anyone familiar with ulcers knows that alcohol is devastating and sometimes fatal to those with serious ulcers. We know Timothy's illness was serious, because Paul was so concerned.

If Paul had prescribed alcohol for Timothy's ulcer, it would have been a horrific mistake. If you think he did, then you should concede it was bad advice, and not use this scripture to recommend alcohol, but rather to dis-recommend Paul.

Here's a link to an article on WebMD which states that moderate wine consumption is beneficial for combating ulcers:

"Moderate Wine, Beer Drinking May Kill Ulcer Bug"
http://www.webmd.com/heartburn-gerd/news/20021230/with-beer-wine-stomachs-fine

We don't know for certain the nature of Timothy's health problem. It may well have been an ulcer, or it may have been something else. Whatever Timothy's problem was, it is likely that moderate amounts of fermented wine would have been beneficial to Timothy's condition. The fact is that numerous health benefits can be derived from moderate wine (and beer) consumption. For example, drinking moderate amounts of wine can help maintain heart health, reduce the likelihood of cancer, and even treat sore throats as well as diarrhea/dysentery. Additionally, a glass of red wine with a meal aids digestion. The list of scientifically proven health benefits from moderate wine consumption goes on.


Paul and most other early (Jewish) Christians continued to take Nazarite vows (Numbers 6) in support of the temple and Jewish practice (see Acts).

Total alcohol prohibitionists focus on the scriptures that condemn or show the results of wrong alcohol use, but neglect those scriptures that show there can be a proper moderate use. If someone today wants to claim that believers do not have the right to drink alcohol on the analogy of a Nazarite vow, they also should say that believers ought not to eat grapes or raisins, nor should they drink grape juice. However, even those who took the Nazarite vow were free to drink wine once their vow was complete:


Numbers 6:20
And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

While it is true that drunkenness is condemned everywhere in scripture, there is no law in scripture forbidding the general population to produce, exchange, sell, or consume wine--even strong wine. Aside from specific circumstances (e.g., the Nazarite vow), the consumption of fermented wine was normally permissible and even encouraged, so long as the consumption was moderate. For example, Deuteronomy 14:26 implies that it is a good thing to drink "wine" and "strong drink" to the Lord:


“And you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household” (NASB).

Also, Isaiah 25:6 refers to "wines on the lees":


And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.

I will refer you to the following link to see for yourself what "wine on the lees" means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lees_(fermentation)

Strong wine was even poured out as a drink offering to the Lord:


Numbers 28:7
...in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Judges 9:13 references wine as "cheering God and man".

In describing the requirements for deacons, Paul wrote:


1 Timothy 3:8
Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to [I]much wine...


See also, Titus 2:3
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine...

So the problem is not with moderate wine consumption, which is perfectly fine from the biblical and scientific perspective. The problem is only with drinking to excess.

_________

Additional References:

"The Bible and Alcohol", by Daniel B. Wallace;
http://bible.org/article/bible-and-alcohol

"Wine in Ancient Israel", By Garrett Peck; http://www.prohibitionhangover.com/israelwine.html

Nazaroo
May 8th, 2010, 09:05 PM
There's no end to wine industry propaganda. And why should we expect it? Drugs including wine are a multi-billion dollar industry.

You seem to hold "authorities" in high regard. I prefer truth.
(wikipedia? Get serious.)

---------------------------------------------

(1) To show just how little you know about the very Holy Scriptures you are quoting, we only need refer to your first quotation:


These men are full of new wine. (Acts) Not only is this a sloppy idiomatic translation, upheld by boozers, the underlying Greek isn't οινος ("oinos") at all!

Its gleukos (a sweet fruit syrup made from boiling juice), sometimes mixed with alcohol in mixed drinks.

Since you aren't going to admit you meant to deliberately mislead English readers, we'll just have to mark you down as ignorant of original Greek NT.

-----------------------------------
(2) You only muddy the waters with your discussion of "old" and "new" oinos, after admitting that the basic mechanism is indeed fermentation and gas production.

You spend paragraphs quibbling about 10% versus 14% or even 20% (who cares?). The point remains the same. Then and now, fermentation naturally stops when the yeast dies in its own excrement. The sediment in your wine is yeast poop. Enjoy.

------------------------------------
(3) You found a link that says alcohol may (or may not) kill bacteria. Wow. Who knew? They've only been using alcohol to swab wounds for a hundred years.

You still haven't addressed any of my points about Paul's private instructions to Timothy, the main one being it isn't a guideline for recreational drinking, but a medical prescription, which you have admitted by posting this link on medical tripe.

-------------------------------------
(4) You ramble on about Nazarites (I am one), but you miss the whole point.

If a man were 'holy' without the Nazarite vow, then it would be superfluous, misleading, and downright wrong.

The Nazarite vow is a vow of holiness, meaning those who drink wine are NOT holy. For instance, even a high priest could not enter the temple unless he was sober (and holy).

--------------------------------------
(5) You offer Daniel Wallace as a parting reference, but we wouldn't even use his work as toilet-paper in the outhouse.

For a critique of his dishonesty, try this link:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/DUMB/Wallass.html

--------------------------------------
If thats all you got, maybe you ought to get a bottle of wine ...(Proverbs 31:6)

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 8th, 2010, 09:49 PM
Isaiah 25:6 KJV
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.

Numbers 6:20 KJV
And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

Numbers 28:7 KJV
...in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Deuteronomy 14:26 KJV
And you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

Nazaroo
May 9th, 2010, 03:14 AM
Isaiah 25:6 KJV
And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.

Numbers 6:20 KJV
And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

Numbers 28:7 KJV
...in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.

Deuteronomy 14:26 KJV
And you may spend the money for whatever your heart desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

Since you don't even understand that the English is only a (biased, out of date) translation, why continue to discuss it?

Why not actually read the last twenty pages of posts first, and then address the actual issues raised, like vocabulary, usage, Hebrew and Greek background culture, Aramaisms, translation-Greek, the LXX, Thayer's bias, the Unitarian movement and its mutilation of Holy Scripture, Baptists, the problem of alcoholism in the priesthood, organised crime, God's condemnation of those who use recreational alcohol to get drunk or high, the Prohibition, etc. etc. etc.

When you are well enough educated to talk about the issues, I suggest making a test-post, with some pertinent questions. We will try to answer them.

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 9th, 2010, 04:12 PM
There's no end to wine industry propaganda. And why should we expect it? Drugs including wine are a multi-billion dollar industry.

There is no "wine industry propaganda" coming from me, only truth. But you seem to consider any truth you disagree with to be propaganda.


You seem to hold "authorities" in high regard. I prefer truth.
(wikipedia? Get serious.)

Since you wish to disparage it, what exactly did the Wikipedia article on lees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lees_(fermentation)) say that you disagree with? The fact is that the "wine on the lees" referred to in Isaiah 25:6 can only refer to fermented wine. Do you dispute this?


(1) To show just how little you know about the very Holy Scriptures you are quoting, we only need refer to your first quotation:


"These men are full of new wine." (Acts 2:13)

Not only is this a sloppy idiomatic translation, upheld by boozers, the underlying Greek isn't οινος ("oinos") at all!

Its gleukos (a sweet fruit syrup made from boiling juice), sometimes mixed with alcohol in mixed drinks.

Since you aren't going to admit you meant to deliberately mislead English readers, we'll just have to mark you down as ignorant of original Greek NT.

It is frankly dishonest for you to assert that I am deliberately misleading others. You do not know me and you cannot be certain of what I am mindful of, therefore you have no right to make such assertions.

However, you are correct to say that I am "ignorant of original Greek NT". I have never studied Greek or Hebrew. What I can do, though, is avail myself of the many resources and reference works that are available both online and off. I've done a bit of research on the Greek word "gleukos", which is translated as "new wine" in Acts 2:13, and although there is some disagreement as to its precise meaning, it does appear to me that the weight of the evidence is in favor of your side of the argument--namely, that gleukos does not refer to a fermented product. I am willing to concede this part of the argument; however, there are other passages of scripture which I believe do refer unquestionably to fermented wine, such as Isaiah 25:6, Numbers 28:7, and Deuteronomy 14:26, and if you can prove otherwise I would appreciate it if you would simply do so.


You spend paragraphs quibbling about 10% versus 14% or even 20% (who cares?).

You were the one who first brought up percentages, so apparently you are the one who cares--or at least you did until I put the light of truth up to your claim that "yeast cannot grow in a solution of 6-10% alcohol" and showed it to be wrong.


The point remains the same. Then and now, fermentation naturally stops when the yeast dies in its own excrement. The sediment in your wine is yeast poop. Enjoy.

This is just you showing your ignorance and/or immaturity. Yeasts are microscopic mushroom-like organisms. They do not have intestines or anuses. You try to make it sound as though they squeeze little brown feces out of their rear ends. They do not. What they do is metabolize sugars, and in the process they release three things, and only three things: 1) carbon dioxide, 2) ethanol, and 3) water. That's it! Besides which, sediment can be removed from wine by raking (http://www.thewinedoctor.com/glossary/r.shtml#racking) and filtration.

Oh, and by the way, the same fermentation process that takes place in wine also takes place in leavened bread. Enjoy!


(3) You found a link that says alcohol may (or may not) kill bacteria. Wow. Who knew? They've only been using alcohol to swab wounds for a hundred years.

Here's something they didn't know, and apparently you don't know it either even though you had a chance to read the article (http://www.webmd.com/heartburn-gerd/news/20021230/with-beer-wine-stomachs-fine):


"The researchers note that wine and beer are rich in compounds with antibacterial activity. Thus the H. pylori protection linked to wine and beer may have nothing to do with their alcohol content."

But this doesn't mean that fermentation isn't necessary in order to obtain wine's health benefits:


The optimal strength of alcohol to water mixtures against E.coli and staphylococci is seventy per cent by weight. Yet most experiments with wine as an antiseptic have proven successful. Recent studies from Bordeaux have pinned down the mechanism to the anthocyanes, a sub-group in the large group of polyphenols present in wine.

The most important member of this group of compounds, as regards antibacterial effects, is also the principal pigment of red wine, malvoside. There is a colourless equivalent for white wines. This pigment is already present in the grapes but combined with a carbohydrate and thus not antiseptic. During alcoholic fermentation it splits free and becomes activated.

(Source: http://mlsv.org.au/files/1980-1984/7th%20April%201984,%20Wine%20as%20Medicine%20By%20 Dr.%20Peter%20Burke.pdf )

There are numerous healthful properties in wine such as polyphenols, resveratrol, essential minerals, etc. The healthful effects of many of these properties are actually enhanced by the fermentation process.


You still haven't addressed any of my points about Paul's private instructions to Timothy, the main one being it isn't a guideline for recreational drinking, but a medical prescription, which you have admitted by posting this link on medical tripe.

That's because I suspect that it is as you suggested: that Paul advised Timothy to relax his Nazarite vow and use a bit of wine as a form of medicine. It's clear from the context that Paul was trying to give Timothy a bit of medical advice, and I think he gave Timothy some good advice there, don't you?


(4) You ramble on about Nazarites (I am one), but you miss the whole point.

If a man were 'holy' without the Nazarite vow, then it would be superfluous, misleading, and downright wrong.

The Nazarite vow is a vow of holiness, meaning those who drink wine are NOT holy. For instance, even a high priest could not enter the temple unless he was sober (and holy).

Obviously, neither God nor Moses would have wanted a drunk priest to minister in the temple. That's just common sense. In order to ensure this didn't happen, they were forbidden to drink wine well before they went into the Tabernacle. But it wasn't forbidden to them on other occasions. If it was, the text would simply forbid them from ever drinking wine at all, which it simply does not do. That only applies to Nazarites, and even then, the prohibition applied only for the duration of their vow (Numbers 6:20). Only those few who were Nazarites for life were specifically forbidden from drinking wine throughout their entire lifetime.


If thats all you got, maybe you ought to get a bottle of wine ...(Proverbs 31:6)

This is the problem that I have with your line of thinking: You seem to think that this topic can only be viewed in terms of extremes. It doesn't have to be that way. I am a middle-aged man, and I have never been drunk once in my life. At most, I drink one beer or one glass of wine in a given day (perhaps two on extremely rare occasions). From time to time, I will go for days, weeks, or even months without a single drink. I live a life of healthy moderation from both the biblical and medical perspective in that regard, but you seem to think that a person must be either a complete prohibitionist or a falling-down drunk. This is simply irrational thinking on your part.

In my view there is not one but two wise choices to make in relation to wine/beer consumption: one is total abstinence (your choice), and the other is moderation. Between the two, I have chosen moderation, and I have both scripture and science on my side in doing so.

Peace be with you.

Nazaroo
May 9th, 2010, 07:24 PM
There is no "wine industry propaganda" coming from me, only truth.
[quote]


[quote]
Since you wish to disparage it, what exactly did the Wikipedia article on lees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lees_%28fermentation%29) say that you disagree with? The fact is that the "wine on the lees" referred to in Isaiah 25:6 can only refer to fermented wine. Do you dispute this?
Perhaps "wine on the lees" does mean something to this effect in the old Elizabethan English. But this is completely foreign to the text of Isaiah here:


וְעָשָׂה יְהוָה צְבָאֹות לְכָל־הָֽעַמִּים בָּהָר הַזֶּה מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָנִים מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָרִים שְׁמָנִים מְמֻחָיִם שְׁמָרִים מְזֻקָּקִֽים׃


"And Yahweh of Armies will prepare for all of the nations on this mountain a feast of choice foods, a banquet of the best shamarim ("drinks") metayim ("with pulp") , [and] shamarim ("drinks") metzqaqim ("purified")."

The normal word for "wine" is 'yayin', not 'shamar'.




... you are correct to say that I am "ignorant of original Greek NT". I have never studied Greek or Hebrew.
An honest and fair admission, and due our respect.



What I can do, though, is avail myself of the many resources and reference works that are available both online and off.
I've done a bit of research on the Greek word "gleukos", which is translated as "new wine" in Acts 2:13, and although there is some disagreement as to its precise meaning, it does appear to me that the weight of the evidence is in favor of your side of the argument--namely, that gleukos does not refer to a fermented product. I am willing to concede this part of the argument; however, there are other passages of scripture which I believe do refer unquestionably to fermented wine, such as Isaiah 25:6, Numbers 28:7, and Deuteronomy 14:26, and if you can prove otherwise I would appreciate it if you would simply do so.
I'll have a look at your other references.








... Yeasts are microscopic mushroom-like organisms. They do not have intestines or anuses. You try to make it sound as though they squeeze little brown feces out of their rear ends. They do not. What they do is metabolize sugars, and in the process they release three things, and only three things: 1) carbon dioxide, 2) ethanol, and 3) water. That's it! Besides which, sediment can be removed from wine by raking (http://www.thewinedoctor.com/glossary/r.shtml#racking) and filtration.

Oh, and by the way, the same fermentation process that takes place in wine also takes place in leavened bread. Enjoy!
I enjoy unleavened bread when its available.






... I suspect that it is as you suggested: that Paul advised Timothy to relax his Nazarite vow and use a bit of wine as a form of medicine. It's clear from the context that Paul was trying to give Timothy a bit of medical advice, and I think he gave Timothy some good advice there, don't you?
I think Paul did give Timothy good advice (not on scientific grounds), but without knowing Timothy's diagnosis, it would be dangerous to extend his prescription to others.





Obviously, neither God nor Moses would have wanted a drunk priest to minister in the temple. That's just common sense. In order to ensure this didn't happen, they were forbidden to drink wine well before they went into the Tabernacle.
'nuff said.


Only those few who were Nazarites for life were specifically forbidden from drinking wine throughout their entire lifetime.
Real Nazarites take lifetime vows. Those that break them end up like Samson.






In my view there is not one but two wise choices to make in relation to wine/beer consumption: one is total abstinence (your choice), and the other is moderation. Between the two, I have chosen moderation, and I have both scripture and science on my side in doing so.

Peace be with you.by admitting there are two wise choices, you admit that scripture and science is on both sides.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
May 15th, 2010, 03:10 AM
A recent report shows just how this cancer regarding marijuana is spreading North of the Mexican/American border.

Whereas just a few years ago, there were only a handful of "outdoor grow-ops" inside Northern California in the state-parks, now the Authorities are finding literally hundreds, even thousands of professionally set up grow-operations being built and operated in what were once pristine wildlife reserves.

The parks are being destroyed, but more importantly, whole truckloads of mexicans are being kidnapped and dragged up into the woods in California to live and tend grow-ops, illegally built in National Parks.

These people are forced to live in squalor, living outside in handmade lean-tos and mudhuts, while the huge Mexican Drug Cartels threaten to murder their family back home in Mexico if they don't cooperate.

Thus the murder and mayhem has now spread far North of the Mexican border, and the gangs operate all over the USA, while stupid young Americans supply the money that drives these gangs and arms them with modern weapons, used for brutal intimidation, torture and murder.

This is what buying even "homegrown" marijuana perpetuates. Vast quantities of loot for murderers and torturers.

Toke up fools, and when the same gangs kick in your door, shoot you and rape your wife or girlfriend, rob you of your property and rob your children of a future, remember, you financed them to do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/hockey-mom-palin-resoundi_n_133913.html




PORTERVILLE, Calif. — National forests and parks _ long popular with Mexican marijuana-growing cartels _ have become home to some of the most polluted pockets of wilderness in America because of the toxic chemicals needed to eke lucrative harvests from rocky mountainsides, federal officials said.
The grow sites have taken hold from the West Coast's Cascade Mountains, as well as on federal lands in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Seven hundred grow sites were discovered on U.S. Forest Service land in California alone in 2007 and 2008 _ and authorities say the 1,800-square-mile Sequoia National Forest is the hardest hit.
Weed and bug sprays, some long banned in the U.S., have been smuggled to the marijuana farms. Plant growth hormones have been dumped into streams, and the water has then been diverted for miles in PVC pipes.
Rat poison has been sprinkled over the landscape to keep animals away from tender plants. And many sites are strewn with the carcasses of deer and bears poached by workers during the five-month growing season that is now ending.
"What's going on on public lands is a crisis at every level," said Forest Service agent Ron Pugh. "These are America's most precious resources, and they are being devastated by an unprecedented commercial enterprise conducted by armed foreign nationals. It is a huge mess."
The first documented marijuana cartels were discovered in Sequoia National Park in 1998. Then, officials say, tighter border controls after Sept. 11, 2001, forced industrial-scale growers to move their operations into the United States.


peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 15th, 2010, 11:56 AM
Perhaps "wine on the lees" does mean something to this effect in the old Elizabethan English. But this is completely foreign to the text of Isaiah here:


וְעָשָׂה יְהוָה צְבָאֹות לְכָל־הָֽעַמִּים בָּהָר הַזֶּה מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָנִים מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָרִים שְׁמָנִים מְמֻחָיִם שְׁמָרִים מְזֻקָּקִֽים׃


"And Yahweh of Armies will prepare for all of the nations on this mountain a feast of choice foods, a banquet of the best shamarim ("drinks") metayim ("with pulp") , [and] shamarim ("drinks") metzqaqim ("purified")."

The normal word for "wine" is 'yayin', not 'shamar'.

The word translated as 'lees' in Isaiah 25:6 ('shemer') is also used in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV to refer to the racking process (http://www.thewinedoctor.com/glossary/r.shtml#racking) in wine-making:


Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees ['shemer'], and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.

Ordinarily, wine with pulp and other sediment is allowed to settle in one vessel, after which it is emptied into another vessel. As long as this transfer is carefully done, most of the lees will remain in the first vessel. This process is done in order to clarify the wine. However, sometimes wine is intentionally left to 'settle on the lees' in order to give it more body, flavor, aroma, etc., and this is the process referred to in the quote above from Jeremiah. The word 'shemer' is used instead of the normal word for wine--'yayin'--because 'wine on the lees' is effectually a different type of wine.

Here is a link to a website which gives a thorough explanation of making 'wine on the lees':

http://www.brsquared.org/wine/Articles/surlie/surlie.htm


An honest and fair admission, and due our respect.

Thank you.


I'll have a look at your other references.

'Yayin (http://devel.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03196)' is used in Numbers 6:20 KJV. The normal word for wine in OT Hebrew, 'yayin', comes from a root word meaning "to effervesce". This is an obvious reference to the fermentation process, because yeasts produce bubbles of carbon dioxide as part of their reaction to metabolizing sugars. (These same bubbles of carbon dioxide are what causes leavened dough to rise.)

'Shekar (http://devel.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=07941)', which is translated as 'strong wine' or 'strong drink', is used in such passages as Numbers 28:7 KJV and Deuteronomy 14:26 KJV.


I enjoy unleavened bread when its available.

From the biblical perspective, I don't know of any reason to avoid leavened bread unless you are observing a holiday such as Passover.


I think Paul did give Timothy good advice (not on scientific grounds), but without knowing Timothy's diagnosis, it would be dangerous to extend his prescription to others.

Agreed. I am not a physician myself, and there are certainly some medical conditions for which wine should be completely avoided.

Luke was a physician and he was Paul's traveling companion on some of his missionary journeys, so Paul may have picked up the wine tip from him.


by admitting there are two wise choices, you admit that scripture and science is on both sides.

Yes, certainly.

Nazaroo
May 17th, 2010, 05:23 AM
The word translated as 'lees' in Isaiah 25:6 ('shemer') is also used in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV to refer to the racking process (http://www.thewinedoctor.com/glossary/r.shtml#racking) in wine-making:
Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees ['shemer'], and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.Ordinarily, wine with pulp and other sediment is allowed to settle in one vessel, after which it is emptied into another vessel. As long as this transfer is carefully done, most of the lees will remain in the first vessel. This process is done in order to clarify the wine. However, sometimes wine is intentionally left to 'settle on the lees' in order to give it more body, flavor, aroma, etc., and this is the process referred to in the quote above from Jeremiah. The word 'shemer' is used instead of the normal word for wine--'yayin'--because 'wine on the lees' is effectually a different type of wine.
This is far too elaborate and unnecessary.

The simple reason is this: When making grape juice (or any other juice), the pulp is strained for various reasons. There is no need to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.

A clear and simple translation giving the essential imagery would be as follows:

"Moab has been at ease since his youth, and he has settled in his sediment ['shemer'], and has not been poured between containers, nor has he gone into captivity: therefore his flavour has remained in him, and his scent is not [so far] changed."
Alcoholic fermentation is unnecessary, and not projected in this passage. European (Roman) ideas remain foreign to the text. Fermentation (and change of scent!) is not indicated.

peace
Nazaroo

Gerald
May 17th, 2010, 01:22 PM
Real Nazarites take lifetime vows. Those that break them end up like Samson.
Idle curiosity here: do you wear your hair really long?

Paulos
May 17th, 2010, 02:21 PM
Because the word οινος "oinos" alone was ambiguous, and was used for both fermented and unfermented juices, only the context would determine what was meant. When the context adequately determines the meaning, no other adjectives are required. The examples you gave give a context, and make clear that in those cases an alcoholic fermented beverage was referenced.

In other cases, an adjective is required, namely "new wine" (neos oinos) = Fresh Juice, and "old wine" = fermented juice. When both types of oinos are referenced in the same sentence or discussion, the adjective is required, to distinguish them.

A good example of the necessity of adjectives and the double-meaning of οινος is in Jesus' discussion of both types of oinos found in Matthew 9:17, where "new wine" clearly means unfermented juice, and "old wine" means fermented juice.

Your claim that "new wine" refers to unfermented juice appears to be contradicted by Hosea 4:11, which includes "new wine" on a short list of items that "take away the understanding". Obviously, this "new wine" must refer to fermented wine because no one would attempt to reasonably suggest that consumption of unfermented grape juice would dull anyone's senses.

The same Hebrew word used in Hosea 4:11 for "new wine" (tiyrowsh) is also used on 37 other occasions in the Old Testament, every one of which is seen in a positive light. This indicates to me that it is only the abuse of the "new wine" that is being criticized, and that there is a proper, moderate use, which is commended.

Reference: "Tiyrowsh - Hebrew Lexicon"; http://devel.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08492

Triatomic
May 17th, 2010, 02:50 PM
Your claim that "new wine" refers to unfermented juice appears to be contradicted by Hosea 4:11, which includes "new wine" on a short list of items that "take away the understanding". Obviously, this "new wine" must refer to fermented wine because no one would attempt to reasonably suggest that consumption of unfermented grape juice would dull anyone's senses.

The same Hebrew word used in Hosea 4:11 for "new wine" (tiyrowsh) is also used on 37 other occasions in the Old Testament, every one of which is seen in a positive light. This indicates to me that it is only the abuse of the "new wine" that is being criticized, and that there is a proper, moderate use, which is commended.

Reference: "Tiyrowsh - Hebrew Lexicon"; http://devel.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=08492

New wine has been used loosely throughout the bible, but none more prevalent then to substantiate claims that new wine is to be used with new wine skins. This was to show that if you try to use old wine skins with new wine, then you risk bursting the skins and ruining the wine.

Paulos
May 17th, 2010, 03:45 PM
This is far too elaborate and unnecessary.

It isn't at all too elaborate or unnecessary, and I think that I can prove it.


The simple reason is this: When making grape juice (or any other juice), the pulp is strained for various reasons. There is no need to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.

Whether pulp is strained out of fresh unfermented grape juice or not does absolutely nothing to alter its flavor or aroma, but straining the lees from wine, or allowing the wine to settle on the lees for an extended period of time, does make a significant difference as to the flavor and aroma of wine, and this is exactly what is being referred to in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV. In ancient Israel, there was no way to age wine on the lees without it becoming fermented, so we have no choice but to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.


European (Roman) ideas remain foreign to the text. Fermentation (and change of scent!) is not indicated.

Wine-making in the ancient world was by no means a uniquely European or Roman idea. The Israelites had understanding of wine production before the Roman Empire was even founded. Knowledge of wine-making (and beer-making) goes back many thousands of years, before Israel was even established. Here's a good article to help prove it:

"Wine-making in Ancient Israel", By Garrett Peck
http://www.prohibitionhangover.com/israelwine.html

Nazaroo
May 17th, 2010, 04:42 PM
It isn't at all too elaborate or unnecessary, and I think that I can prove it.



Whether pulp is strained out of fresh unfermented grape juice or not does absolutely nothing to alter its flavor or aroma, but straining the lees from wine, or allowing the wine to settle on the lees for an extended period of time, does make a significant difference as to the flavor and aroma of wine, and this is exactly what is being referred to in Jeremiah 48:11 KJV.


This is right where we disagree, and I'm still waiting any proof of your interpretation which you have imposed upon the Hebrew text.





In ancient Israel, there was no way to age wine on the lees without it becoming fermented, so we have no choice but to associate this with alcohol manufacturing.
Wrong again.

There were many methods and industries to prepare and preserve fruit juices, fruits, fruit sugars, jams and jellies, all without involving alcohol.

Just a few of the examples still in use today from Morocco to Turkey are:

(1) Submerging juice in cold running streams and lakes.
(2) boiling juice down to syrup.
(3) sealing juices and jams in clay containers with wax.


This is an old myth, used in the 19th century to justify wine-making and boozing in Europe, but it doesn't reflect current scholarship on Mediterranean husbandry.






Wine-making in the ancient world was by no means a uniquely European or Roman idea. The Israelites had understanding of wine production before the Roman Empire was even founded. Knowledge of wine-making (and beer-making) goes back many thousands of years, before Israel was even established. Here's a good article to help prove it:
No need to prove this. Its not in dispute. Early on in this thread, we already documented fact that beer-making was invented by the Egyptians 1000 years before Christ in the Middle Kingdom Period of Egypt. Other examples could be cited, but why bother?

Its just as clear that Jews were stubborn to the point of death by torture and sword in resisting Greek culture, including boozing. Just read all the books of the Maccabees, conveniently left out of Protestant Bibles, for the purpose of enabling drug-dealing, and booze-running to minors.

The fact is irrelevant to the practices of early Jewish asthetics and religious fanatics. The best documentation for that is not appeals to the abbhorent and abominable practices of OTHER nations, but to the plainly printed Rule of Holiness in the Torah:

Numbers 6.

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 17th, 2010, 08:01 PM
This is right where we disagree, and I'm still waiting any proof of your interpretation which you have imposed upon the Hebrew text.

Tell me, how does grape pulp or the lack of grape pulp influence either the flavor or aroma of unfermented grape juice? Grape juice tastes and smells like grape juice whether it has grape pulp or not, but whether fermented wine has been left on its lees or not does have a considerable effect on its aroma and flavor, as per Jeremiah 48:11.

Grape juice is grape juice. Grape juice does not change its flavor or aroma, but fermented wine does--depending on how it is allowed to ferment. Therefore, this verse (and Isaiah 25:6 KJV) must be referring to fermented wine.


There were many methods and industries to prepare and preserve fruit juices, fruits, fruit sugars, jams and jellies, all without involving alcohol.

Just a few of the examples still in use today from Morocco to Turkey are:

(1) Submerging juice in cold running streams and lakes.
(2) boiling juice down to syrup.
(3) sealing juices and jams in clay containers with wax.

Again, what would be the need of transferring grape juice "from vessel to vessel" as indicated in Jeremiah 48:11 if the juice had been submerged in cold water, boiled down to syrup, or sealed in clay containers with wax? Furthermore, what would such a transfer do to affect the flavor or aroma of the juice?

As the Bible-history.com website puts it:


"[U]nfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Israel was impossible...In the climate of Israel fermentation begins almost immediately, frequently on the same day for juice pressed out in the morning, but never later than the next day. At first a slight foam appears on the surface of the liquid, and from that moment, according to Jewish tradition, it is liable to the wine-tithe. The action rapidly becomes more violent, and while it is in progress the liquid must be kept in jars or in a vat, for it would burst even the newest and strongest of wine-skins (Job 32:19). Within about a week this violent fermentation subsides, and the wine is transferred to other jars or strong wine-skins (Mk 2:22 and parallel's), in which it undergoes the secondary fermentation. At the bottom of the receptacles collects the heavier matter or "lees", from which the "wines on the lees" gather strength and flavor.
At the end of 40 days it was regarded as properly "wine" and could be offered as a drink offering. The practice after this point seems to have varied, no doubt depending on the sort of wine that was being made. Certain kinds were left undisturbed to age "on their lees" and were thought to be all the better for so doing, but before they were used it was necessary to strain them very carefully. So Isa 25:6, 'A feast of wine aged on the lees, thoroughly strained.' But usually leaving the wine in the fermentation vessels interfered with its improvement or caused it to degenerate. So at the end of 40 days it was drawn off into other jars (for storage, 1 Ch 27:27, etc.) or wine-skins (for transportation, Josh 9:4, etc.)."

Source: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/W/WINE%3B+WINE+PRESS/


Its just as clear that Jews were stubborn to the point of death by torture and sword in resisting Greek culture, including boozing. Just read all the books of the Maccabees, conveniently left out of Protestant Bibles, for the purpose of enabling drug-dealing, and booze-running to minors.

The fact is irrelevant to the practices of early Jewish asthetics and religious fanatics. The best documentation for that is not appeals to the abbhorent and abominable practices of OTHER nations, but to the plainly printed Rule of Holiness in the Torah:

Numbers 6.

Your characterization of Greek culture as "including boozing" indicates unawareness of the true Greek view of wine consumption. For example, here is what Plato had to write on the subject in The Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_%28dialogue%29):


"Shall we not ordain by law, in the first place, that boys shall not, on any account, taste wine till they are eighteen years old? In the next place, we should inform them that wine is to be used moderately till they are thirty years old. But when they have attained the fortieth year, then they may attend feasts; for Bacchus has bestowed wine upon men as a remedy against the austerity of old age, that through this we might acquire a second youth, forget sorrow [cf. Proverbs 31:6], and the manners of the mind be rendered softer, as iron is softened by the action of the fire."

Plato also wrote that wine "...according to the assertions of some, was given to men as a punishment, that they might be rendered insane: But we have now said that it is, on the contrary, medicine; and was given that the soul might acquire modesty, and the body health and vigour." (In other words, Plato advocated proper use, as opposed to misuse or abuse, of wine.)

Your opinion of Hellenistic culture as "including boozing" is probably inspired by images of the Bacchanalian festivals, but it should be made known that the Bacchanalians were a religious cult whose activities were frowned upon by the larger Greco-Roman society, and eventually the Roman senate moved to repress them in 186 BC.

Aside from Plato, "From Athenaeus we learn that the Greeks often mingled their wine with water; sometimes one part of wine to two of water; three parts of water to one of wine; and at other times three parts of water to two of wine...Among the Locrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locrians), if any one was found to have drunk unmixed wine, unless prescribed by a physician, he was punished with death; the laws of Zaleucus so requiring. And among the Romans, no servant, nor free woman, nor youths of quality, drank any wine till they were thirty years of age." (Source: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae; http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1tim5.htm)

It may have been that the Hebrews did not accept the custom of diluting wine with water until after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great. It's interesting that you should bring up the books of the Maccabees, because prior to their Greek influence, Isaiah 1:22 speaks negatively about mixing wine with water, but 2 Maccabees 15:40 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/2maccabees/2maccabees15.htm), which was written after the Greek conquest, states that "it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight".

In short, mainstream Hellenistic culture viewed wine consumption and drunkenness in largely the same way as did the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

Nazaroo
May 17th, 2010, 10:21 PM
Tell me, how does grape pulp or the lack of grape pulp influence either the flavor or aroma of unfermented grape juice? Grape juice tastes and smells like grape juice whether it has grape pulp or not, but whether fermented wine has been left on its lees or not does have a considerable effect on its aroma and flavor, as per Jeremiah 48:11.

Grape juice is grape juice. Grape juice does not change its flavor or aroma, but fermented wine does--depending on how it is allowed to ferment.

Therefore, this verse (and Isaiah 25:6 KJV) must be referring to fermented wine.


Again, in the absence of any sensible proof for your translation and interpretation of the Hebrew passage, you just repeat what we already probably agree upon.

Your logical claim which follows, above, however, is simpy a non sequiter.

I'm still waiting for good linguistic and historical arguments that would support your interpretation, and none are forthcoming, obviously.




Again, what would be the need of transferring grape juice "from vessel to vessel" as indicated in Jeremiah 48:11 if the juice had been submerged in cold water, boiled down to syrup, or sealed in clay containers with wax?


Why play so dumb?

Anyone who has watched a panhandler, or sifted muddy water for an object knows the value of transfering the clearer part of any watery suspension to another container, and repeating this process to purify/clarify (remove suspended solids) from a liquid.

The process of boiling, and/or storing food comes AFTERWARD, as you can easily imagine, unless the right-brain (responsible for geometric thinking) has been damaged by a horse-kick.








Furthermore, what would such a transfer do to affect the flavor or aroma of the juice?


The answer to this question is "who cares?" (rhetorical only).

Since the passage talks about Moab being unchanged, and obviously filthy, the metaphoric images of panhandling him between containers are quite cute.





As the Bible-history.com website puts it:

"[u]nfermented grape juice is a very difficult thing to keep without the aid of modern antiseptic precautions, and its preservation in the warm and not over-cleanly conditions of ancient Israel was impossible...


What nonsense.




At the end of 40 days it was regarded as properly "wine" and could be offered as a drink offering.


No documentation, and no plausibility.





The practice after this point seems to have varied, no doubt depending on the sort of wine that was being made.


No doubt! And no doubt the "sources" used for this turned out to be heavily conflicting. We can have little doubt that the source was the Talmud. I have spent years struggling with the Babylonian Aramaic of large portions of this. I can testify firsthand of its ambiguous and self-contradictory nature. There is no other earlier Palestinian source.






Certain kinds were left undisturbed to age "on their lees" and were thought to be all the better for so doing, but before they were used it was necessary to strain them very carefully. So Isa 25:6, 'A feast of wine aged on the lees, thoroughly strained.'

But usually leaving the wine in the fermentation vessels interfered with its improvement or caused it to degenerate. So at the end of 40 days it was drawn off into other jars (for storage, 1 Ch 27:27, etc.) or wine-skins (for transportation, Josh 9:4, etc.)."Source: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/W/WINE%3B+WINE+PRESS/



Absurd, and unreliable, undocumented bogus 'authority'. Got anything better?





Your characterization of Greek culture as "including boozing" indicates unawareness of the true Greek view of wine consumption.


For example, here is what Plato had to write on the subject


Plato also wrote [blah blah blah...] (In other words, Plato advocated proper use, as opposed to misuse or abuse, of wine.)


This is precisely what happened to Christianity from about 310 A.D. onward. It was completely infested with Platonic garbage.

This is anachronistic as hell, but interestingly tells more about where [B]you are coming from (a wine-making monastery?) than about Hebrew culture in Palestine in the Herodian period.




Your opinion of Hellenistic culture as "including boozing" is probably inspired by images of the Bacchanalian festivals, but it should be made known that the Bacchanalians were a religious cult whose activities were frowned upon by the larger Greco-Roman society, and eventually the Roman senate moved to repress them in 186 BC.


As if this matters. Or Plato.

It was the Greek Empire and army of ALEXANDER and his sons who clashed with the Hebrews of Palestine, not Greek philosophers or Roman senators a thousand miles away.

The Greek armies were pillaging, raping, hedonistic boozers with swords, who enjoyed the gymnasium, not 'sensible' law-abiding quaint little homosexual philosophers.




Aside from Plato, "From Athenaeus we learn that the Greeks often mingled their wine with water; sometimes one part of wine to two of water; three parts of water to one of wine; and at other times three parts of water to two of wine...Among the Locrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locrians), if any one was found to have drunk unmixed wine, unless prescribed by a physician, he was punished with death; the laws of Zaleucus so requiring. And among the Romans, no servant, nor free woman, nor youths of quality, drank any wine till they were thirty years of age." (Source: Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae; http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1tim5.htm)


Do you honestly think the above has any historical reality to it? What crap. I'm glad I wasn't drinking wine while reading this, or else the wine might have come out my nose (and ***).



It may have been that the Hebrews did not accept the custom of diluting wine with water until after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great. It's interesting that you should bring up the books of the Maccabees, because prior to their Greek influence, Isaiah 1:22 speaks negatively about mixing wine with water, but 2 Maccabees 15:40 (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/2maccabees/2maccabees15.htm), which was written after the Greek conquest, states that "it is harmful to drink wine alone or water alone, whereas mixing wine with water makes a more pleasant drink that increases delight".


With this you win the all-time bonehead award for ridiculous exegesis!

It demonstrates you haven't understood a single thing about any part of this Biblical tradition.

(1) The complaints about watering down the wine are just that: complaints against dishonesty and fraud, not complaints about the strength of grape juice or any other liquid.

(2) The Hebrews couldn't care less if people diluted their wine, and neither did the Greeks. The specific complaints against the Greeks by the Hebrews was their lawlessness and uncleanness, and their lewdness, inspired by their excess in everything from eating and drinking, to fornication and nudity.
If you missed this, you missed a whole century of cultural warfare as violent as any now in the Middle East.

(3) The Hebrews were forced by the Greeks to break their purity laws and food laws, and they desecrated the Temple by killing a pig on the altar. Also the Greeks murdered thousands of Israelites who would not participate in Greek lawlessness.
If you missed this, you missed the entire background to the New Testament.




In short, mainstream Hellenistic culture viewed wine consumption and drunkenness in largely the same way as did the Hebrews of the Old Testament.

...Which has nothing to do with these passages, or the conflict between the Greeks and the Jews.

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 18th, 2010, 10:32 AM
Real Nazarites take lifetime vows. Those that break them end up like Samson.


Idle curiosity here: do you wear your hair really long?

I, too, am curious about this, Gerald.

Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a hair cut? Also, when was the last time you consumed grapes, raisins, grape juice, or any food which contains grape products or grape extracts?

What is your source for your claim that "Real Nazarites take lifetime vows"? This is obviously contradicted by Numbers 6:13-20.

Nazaroo
May 18th, 2010, 11:27 AM
I, too, am curious about this, Gerald.

Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a hair cut? Also, when was the last time you consumed grapes, raisins, grape juice, or any food which contains grape products or grape extracts?


Long time, but specific dates are not your business, since I have a longstanding policy of not giving out personal info over the net.

Typically modern Nazarites keep their on/off schedules secret, especially from their enemies (lesson learned from Samson). There's no temple, and priests can't be trusted these days.

I don't eat so much as a grape-seed willingly or knowingly. Its hard to shop for me, because many typical grocerystore products use white grapejuice as a filler in things as unlikely as bread, lemonaide, and cheese.

Thats why I do my own shopping.




What is your source for your claim that "Real Nazarites take lifetime vows"? This is obviously contradicted by Numbers 6:13-20.Answer: Judges 13:5.

Its Numbers 6 that contradicts Judges (an older document) not the other way around.

Numbers 6 is for YOU guys, ordinary Israelite poofkas. wimps, faggy little limp-wristed boys, too timid to be real Nazarites. The priests there suggest a one or 2 week vow for those not used to being holy, which is just about all of you.

Since you have to actually keep vows, I suggest you follow the priests' guidelines so you don't get hopelessly into debt through failure the first 5 times you try to take a Nazarite vow.

you'll know your vow is working if you can rip a phonebook in half.

Good luck [/smerk]

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
May 18th, 2010, 11:36 AM
I, too, am curious about this, Gerald.

Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a hair cut?

Never. Thats a Roman practice, just as shaving is an Egyptian one, and shaving your body is a Greek homo behavior.

No self-respecting Israelite shaves their beard, since its against the Torah, even for those not on a Nazarite vow.

Here's a bit of advice: Don't imitate sinful heathen practices, even in jest.


peace
Nazaroo

Gerald
May 18th, 2010, 12:13 PM
Long time, but specific dates are not your business, since I have a longstanding policy of not giving out personal info over the net.

Typically modern Nazarites keep their on/off schedules secret, especially from their enemies (lesson learned from Samson). There's no temple, and priests can't be trusted these days.Nazarites also tend to be a bit paranoid, if you're any indication.

It's not like the Philistines are looking to settle the score.

Numbers 6 is for YOU guys, ordinary Israelite poofkas. wimps, faggy little limp-wristed boys, too timid to be real Nazarites. The priests there suggest a one or 2 week vow for those not used to being holy, which is just about all of you.

Since you have to actually keep vows, I suggest you follow the priests' guidelines so you don't get hopelessly into debt through failure the first 5 times you try to take a Nazarite vow.

you'll know your vow is working if you can rip a phonebook in half.

Good luck [/smerk]
Ripping a phone book in half? That's less than impressive. Anybody with an understanding of leverage can do that.

Call me when you can stop bullets without injury, and then I'll allow that you might be onto something (as opposed to just on something...).

Gerald
May 18th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Never. Thats a Roman practice, just as shaving is an Egyptian one, and shaving your body is a Greek homo behavior.

No self-respecting Israelite shaves their beard, since its against the Torah, even for those not on a Nazarite vow.

Here's a bit of advice: Don't imitate sinful heathen practices, even in jest.


peace
NazarooAnd people wonder why I call Middle Easterners "hairy barbarians"... :chuckle:

Paulos
May 18th, 2010, 05:28 PM
In response to my question, "When was the last time you consumed grapes, raisins, grape juice, or any food which contains grape products or grape extracts?", Nazaroo replied:


Long time, but specific dates are not your business, since I have a longstanding policy of not giving out personal info over the net.

Typically modern Nazarites keep their on/off schedules secret, especially from their enemies (lesson learned from Samson). There's no temple, and priests can't be trusted these days.

I don't eat so much as a grape-seed willingly or knowingly. Its hard to shop for me, because many typical grocerystore products use white grapejuice as a filler in things as unlikely as bread, lemonaide, and cheese.

Thats why I do my own shopping.

Thanks for the reply, Nazaroo, but I am at a loss to understand your need for secrecy on this issue. It turns out that you have already given a specific date earlier in this thread. On September 3rd, 2009, you made the following post:


I have held the same view of both the pharmaceutical industry, and also about drinking, for over 35 years, the approximate length of time that I have been a Nazarite. (see Numbers ch.6).


So, you have been a Nazarite for some 35 or 36 years now. This would mean that you haven't knowingly consumed grapes, raisins, or any grape-related or derived substance in that length of time, correct?

____________

In response to my question, "Nazaroo, if I may inquire, when was the last time you got a haircut?" You replied:


Never. Thats a Roman practice, just as shaving is an Egyptian one, and shaving your body is a Greek homo behavior.

No self-respecting Israelite shaves their beard, since its against the Torah, even for those not on a Nazarite vow.

Do you mean to say that you have never shaved in your entire life, and that even as a child, your parents never had any of your hair cut even once? But you said that you have been a Nazarite for 35 years. I am assuming that you are much older than 35. Does this mean that you never got your hair cut, even before you became a Nazarite?

__________

In answer to my question, "What is your source for your claim that "real Nazarites take lifetime vows", as this is obviously contradicted by Numbers 6:13-20?" Nazaroo replied:


Answer: Judges 13:5.

Its Numbers 6 that contradicts Judges (an older document) not the other way around.

Numbers 6 is for YOU guys, ordinary Israelite poofkas. wimps, faggy little limp-wristed boys, too timid to be real Nazarites. The priests there suggest a one or 2 week vow for those not used to being holy, which is just about all of you.

People who were life-long Nazarites, such as Samson, were extremely rare and specifically chosen before their birth. They were never to shave their hair or consume grape products, and even the mothers of such children were instructed to avoid "grape juice" during their pregnancies (e.g., Judges 13:7). Did your mother avoid grape juice during her pregnancy with you? Were you chosen from before your birth to be a Nazarite, and raised as a Nazarite after your birth? You cannot be a life-long "true Nazarite", as you claim you are, unless all these things apply to you.

According to Numbers 6:18, upon completion of his vow the Nazarite was to shave his head. Acts 18:18 tells us that Paul "shaved his head in Cenchrea" upon completion of his vow. Acts 21:24 further states that four men with Paul also shaved their heads. There is no need for me to ask you if you consider yourself to be more holy than Paul, because I already know that you do, but do you really consider Paul to be an "ordinary Israelite poofka, wimp, faggy little limp-wristed boy, too timid to be a real Nazarite", as you put it?



The Nazarite vow is a vow of holiness, meaning those who drink wine are NOT holy.

Are you saying that Jesus was not holy? After all, it is explicitly stated in such passages as Luke 7:33-34 and Matthew 26:29 that Jesus drank wine/grape juice. Furthermore, Jesus' first recorded miracle is creating wine/grape juice out of water as recorded in John 2:1-11. Jesus also likened himself to a grapevine in John 15:1-8, with his followers as the branches. Jesus also taught many parables that involved vineyards. If grapes and "grape juice" were such unholy items, why did Jesus consume them and refer to them in such a positive light?

Nazaroo
May 18th, 2010, 08:03 PM
Thanks for the reply, Nazaroo, but I am at a loss to understand your need for secrecy on this issue.


Glad you have no enemies, even high-school pranksters.
But Jews and Israelis have a different view on caution and enemies.



It turns out that you have already given a specific date earlier in this thread. Thats not a specific date.




So, you have been a Nazarite for some 35 or 36 years now. This would mean that you haven't knowingly consumed grapes, raisins, or any grape-related or derived substance in that length of time, correct?
Yes. Why reiterate what a Nazarite vow is? Its not rocket-science.




Do you mean to say that you have never shaved in your entire life, and that even as a child, your parents never had any of your hair cut even once?
Children aren't responsible for what their parents do. They are under their authority. For a child, a Nazarite vow would be the responsibility of the parent as shown in Judges.

Not my responsibility, not my sin, not my culpability, not my problem.




But you said that you have been a Nazarite for 35 years. I am assuming that you are much older than 35. Does this mean that you never got your hair cut, even before you became a Nazarite?
You can add, all the way up to 35. We can work on multiplication when we review the Biblical view of marriage.

Too bad you can't seem to understand the basic consequences of logic. You know I've been a Nazarite over 35 years, and yet you want to discuss the time when I was NOT a Nazarite, as if it had any significance whatsoever.

But I've already told you I don't give personal info over the net.






People who were life-long Nazarites, such as Samson, were extremely rare and specifically chosen before their birth.


Again, your Biblical exegesis sucks.

The Nazarite vow is the only voluntary law in the whole Torah, of 613 alleged commandments. As such it is normally engaged when a person is an adult with appropriate education, hopefully being taught to be a good Israelite from childhood.

You wish to confuse and conflate two categories of Nazarite:

(1) Nazarites born and appointed to be so by God through an Angel.

(2) Adults who voluntarily become lifelong Nazarites as adults. That there is such a second category is evident from such scriptures as "Be Holy, for I the LORD am Holy", and Jesus' words for example on eunichs (men voluntarily celibate).

Its never too late for you to stop selling drugs like alcohol, and join category (2).



You cannot be a life-long "true Nazarite", as you claim you are, unless all these things apply to you.
Wrong again. I CAN claim to be a life-long Nazarite, because I have taken such a vow. I don't need an angel to announce my birth. See category (2) if you are still this slow on the uptake.




...
do you really consider Paul to be an "ordinary Israelite poofka, wimp, faggy little limp-wristed boy, too timid to be a real Nazarite", as you put it?
Paul [Saul] started out a goof, but got smacked down by Jesus. In the end I think he turned out alright.



Are you saying that Jesus was not holy? After all, it is explicitly stated in such passages as Luke 7:33-34 and Matthew 26:29 that Jesus drank wine/grape juice.
I pity the fool who thinks he can find a scripture that shows Jesus drank 'wine' (oinos) fermented or unfermented during His public ministry, Although He would have been free to do so when not on His Nazarite vow, whenever that might have been, if he was not on a lifetime vow.

Again your exegesis and understanding of the Holy Scriptures blows chunks.




Furthermore, Jesus' first recorded miracle is creating wine/grape juice out of water as recorded in John 2:1-11.
It was not His first "miracle", it was His first SIGN to the Jews. At that time, His entire Galilean ministry was nearly over. John records seven (7) SIGNS for the religious authorities and the Southern Judeans (inhabitants of Southern Kingdom of Judea, descendents of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a remnant of Levites).

Again, work on your reading comprehension.




Jesus also likened himself to a grapevine in John 15:1-8, with his followers as the branches.
There is quite a discussion among Aramaists at this very moment on whether or not Jesus originally said "tree" here (in Aramaic or Hebrew), as recorded in the Aramaic and Syriac versions of the NT and the Diatessaron.

I'll keep you posted.




Jesus also taught many parables that involved vineyards. If grapes and "grape juice" were such unholy items, why did Jesus consume them and refer to them in such a positive light?Jesus didn't consume them. The unfermented grape-juice required at the Pascha was not taken by Jesus.

Instead, Jesus records the strongest Nazarite vow ever spoken, in renewing His yearly pledge:
"Truly I say to you that I SHALL NOT DRINK of the fruit of the vine (grapejuice), until the Kingdom of God comes!" (Luke 22:18)
If you missed this, you were again asleep at the wheel.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
May 18th, 2010, 08:10 PM
Call me when you can stop bullets without injury, and then I'll allow that you might be onto something (as opposed to just on something...).


Bullets don't kill people, atheists do. :chew:

Atheists who burn in hell afterward. I can't wait to see you there on Judgement Day.

Paulos
May 18th, 2010, 09:37 PM
Its never too late for you to stop selling drugs like alcohol

False assumption. I don't sell alcohol or any drug. In fact, I don't sell anything.



Paul [Saul] started out a goof, but got smacked down by Jesus. In the end I think he turned out alright.

How's that? Paul, who shaved his head in Acts 18:18 and had a company of 4 men shave their heads in Acts 21:24, turned out alright? When and how did that happen, because I thought you said that getting a haircut was a Roman practice, and that we are not to "imitate sinful heathen practices, even in jest" (your words). And didn't Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that it is shameful for a man to have long hair?


I pity the fool who thinks he can find a scripture that shows Jesus drank 'wine' (oinos) fermented or unfermented during His public ministry...The unfermented grape-juice required at the Pascha was not taken by Jesus.

I object to your insinuation that I am a fool on this basis. Insults and baseless contradictions are resorted to only by those who know that they are loosing in debate but refuse to admit it.

Let's reconsider Jesus' words in the gospel of Matthew:


"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

If you are able, try to put aside for a moment the shock you must feel at the thought of people drinking such an unholy substance as "oinos" in heaven, and consider the wording of this passage. Jesus said, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until..." Jesus used the word "henceforth", which means, "from this point on". This means that prior to that pronouncement, Jesus had been drinking "oinos" with his disciples. The word "henceforth" requires a separation of what came before with what will come after, until a third event takes place (namely, drinking it anew with them in his Father's kingdom). If Jesus had not been drinking "oinos" with disciples, there would have been no reason for him to use that word.

Paulos
May 18th, 2010, 09:56 PM
Bullets don't kill people, atheists do. :chew:

Atheists who burn in hell afterward. I can't wait to see you there on Judgement Day.

This sort of rhetoric isn't healthy for you or anyone else. You don't even allow for the possibility that Gerald may convert and be saved with that comment. You're simply consigning someone to hell and then telling him that you are looking forward to seeing it happen. How vulgar. And what's that I see you've claimed for your motto?


Slogan/motto:
Any fool can kill a man. How many have you saved?

Are you sure that motto wasn't put there by mistake?

Gerald
May 18th, 2010, 10:10 PM
Bullets don't kill people, atheists do. :chew:Hmmm, I seem to have missed that particular memo.

If I've ever killed somebody, or through inaction caused somebody to die, I'm sure I'd remember.

Atheists who burn in hell afterward. I can't wait to see you there on Judgement Day.:yawn:

Don't you need to go comb your beard or something, Nazarube?

Gerald
May 18th, 2010, 10:19 PM
You don't even allow for the possibility that Gerald may convert and be saved with that comment. You're simply consigning someone to hell and then telling him that you are looking forward to seeing it happen.That's the last refuge of someone who doesn't have the guts to do the deed personally: "I lack the fortitude to dispatch your reprobate carcass to perdition myself, so I'll just wait for God to actually do what I can only fantasize about!"

How vulgar.Naz is good at that, as I'm sure you've noticed... :chuckle:

And what's that I see you've claimed for your motto?


Slogan/motto:
Any fool can kill a man. How many have you saved?

Are you sure that motto wasn't put there by mistake?
He's just expressing more wishful thinking. :D

Persephone66
May 18th, 2010, 10:27 PM
This thread reminded me Clerks 2.

Because Jay and Silent Bob read the Bible and still sold drugs.


I think I'm going to watch it again when I get off work in the morning. Great movie.

Nazaroo
May 19th, 2010, 10:36 AM
False assumption. I don't sell alcohol or any drug. In fact, I don't sell anything.


Obviously the subtlety of my figure of speech eluded you.

You're selling alcohol right now, by telling people its okay, even God-approved, when it isn't. Its an industrial solvent and systemic poison.





How's that? Paul, who shaved his head in Acts 18:18 and had a company of 4 men shave their heads in Acts 21:24, turned out alright? When and how did that happen, because I thought you said that getting a haircut was a Roman practice, and that we are not to "imitate sinful heathen practices, even in jest" (your words).


Paul didn't just get a haircut, as I'm sure you're aware: He went into the temple to have the priest do this, so that the hair could be burnt on the altar. This act signifies either the start, or the end, or the renewal of a Nazarite vow, as I'm sure you are aware.

Going to a Roman barbershop is nothing of the kind, and is a heathen practice classed as an abomination in the Torah.




And didn't Paul say in 1 Corinthians 11:14 that it is shameful for a man to have long hair?


No. The Romans said that. From the obvious internal evidence, 1st Corinthians is actually 2nd Corinthians (1st Cor. 5:9 etc.), and has been rewritten by the collector of Paul's letters: that would be the Roman church.

Again, you need to read the word carefully and know it better.










Let's reconsider Jesus' words in the gospel of Matthew:

"But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."



Sure lets consider it: Oh look, the word "henceforth" isn't in the Greek, nor is it implied:


"Πιετε εξ αυτου παντες.
...λεγω δε υμιν οτι
ου μη πιω απ αρτι εκ τουτου γεννηματος της αμπελου,
εως της ημερας εκεινης οταν αυτο πινω μεθ' υμων καινον
εν τη βασιλεια του Πατρος μου."

"YOU drink out of it, all of you!....
...But I say to you that
By no means will Idrink, from this very moment out of this, generated from the vine,
[not generated from fermentation,]
until that day, when I will drink it with you anew
in the Kingdom of My Father." (Matt. 26:27b-29!)

Again you tried to chop the speech in half, leaving the first half out, and misleading all the readers of your quotation!
Jesus' word begins in the last half of Matt.26:27.

With both halves of Jesus' saying together, and coordinated by the "δε" (" - but..."), His speech makes perfect sense. He picks up the cup as High Priest, which contains symbolically His own blood, and of course HE doesn't drink it! He gives it to His disciples.
As He has done so many times before in His public ministry, here Jesus AMPLIFIES something formerly ordinary, something from the O.T., the Torah (the Passover Cup), and totally changes its meaning, then at the same time takes the Nazarite Vow of Holiness, and AMPLIFIES THAT TOO, beyond all lame norms: "until the Kingdom of My Father comes!"

Thats His vow! He doesn't pause to finish off a bottle of wine between His previous vow and the next. He rushes right to the finish, by starting a vow so heavy, so huge, so "impossible", that it can hardly be less than astounding.

For everyone knows, 'you make a vow, you keep it, pal!'

Nor would the mocking of Jesus by shoving 'oinos' in his face on a sponge, and His refusing to drink it mean anything, until this VOW was accomplished.






If you are able, try to put aside for a moment the shock you must feel at the thought of people drinking such an unholy substance as "oinos" in heaven, and consider the wording of this passage.

"oinos" isn't unholy, unless it is fermented into alcohol.
Thats why all yeast must be completely removed even from the home for 8 days during the eating of unleavened bread.

The only shock I'm feeling, is at your ineptness at handling the Holy Scriptures, and your incomprehension of what a logical syllogism requires.



"from this point on". This means that prior to that pronouncement, Jesus had been drinking "oinos" with his disciples.

This means nothing of the kind, until you try to give that impression by leaving out half the speech.




The word "henceforth" requires a separation of what came before with what will come after, until a third event takes place (namely, drinking it anew with them in his Father's kingdom).




If Jesus had not been drinking "oinos" with disciples, there would have been no reason for him to use that word.

Wrong again. If I go to the temple to renew a vow, I am not required to drink wine when one vow ends and another begins. Even you must concede that wine drinking is voluntary. The Law doesn't require it when renewing a vow.

There is one obvious reason why Jesus and friends WOULD use that word (oinos). Its part of the Passover ritual and tradition. The passover ritual does not REQUIRE anyone to drink oinos, or wine, or grape-juice either. ANY lifelong Nazarite (such as Samson or John Baptist for instance) would not be required to drink grapejuice, let alone wine, even though it was permitted to ordinary Israelites during the passover.
Passover does not make oinos mandatory, but it does provide a context for using the word, and an opportunity for Jesus to hijack a symbol.

Nazaroo
May 19th, 2010, 10:43 AM
Hmmm, I seem to have missed that particular memo.

Let me help:
Christians don't kill people, because they know its futile. God can just resurrect them. Only an atheist would believe he had the power to kill someone permanently and so get rid of them.

A Christian who did kill someone would be having a "lack of faith" moment.



If I've ever killed somebody, or through inaction caused somebody to die, I'm sure I'd remember.

Sadly, I doubt it, especially if you killed someone by ineptitude or ignorance, or through incomprehension of the later consequences of your actions. Thats the basis of all industrial accidents, and negligent manslaughter.

On the other hand, if you watched a blind man walking off a cliff and did nothing, you would remember it. Because that is murder.

Many other indirect actions however are also murder, homicide through carelessness.

On Judgement Day, I'm sure God will play back the video for you, so you can trace all the significant consequences of your own actions, that may have skipped your notice.

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
May 19th, 2010, 08:32 PM
Obviously the subtlety of my figure of speech eluded you.

You're selling alcohol right now, by telling people its okay, even God-approved, when it isn't. Its an industrial solvent and systemic poison.

You are being absurd. We are talking about wine here, not pure alcohol. Wine is neither an "industrial solvent" nor is it a "systemic poison". Furthermore, even by "the subtlety of your figure of speech", I am not "selling alcohol". I am simply presenting the balanced scriptural and medical viewpoint on wine consumption, both the good and the bad. Nothing I have posted can serve to justify the excessive use of wine, beer, or any other fermented drink--quite the contrary.


Even you must concede that wine drinking is voluntary.

I don't have to concede that "wine drinking is voluntary" because I never suggested that it was involuntary, and I don't know what would make you think I ever did or ever would suggest that.


From the obvious internal evidence, 1st Corinthians is actually 2nd Corinthians (1st Cor. 5:9 etc.), and has been rewritten by the collector of Paul's letters: that would be the Roman church.

1 Corinthians is not 2 Corinthians. Paul is known to have written several epistles that are no longer extant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Lost_Pauline_Epistles

And here is where any hope of reasoning with you becomes impossible. I have read your posts on this thread, as well as the thread on another forum that you linked to in your first post, and I find that whenever you are presented with a scripture that undeniably contradicts your beliefs, you will simply rewrite or misinterpret that scripture until it does conform with your beliefs, or you may even simply reject it all together. For example, I have seen you cast aspersions on the gospel of Matthew or portions thereof, the book of Numbers or portions thereof, and now you are doing the same with Paul's letters to the Corinthians. I don't mean to sound too harsh, but I find you to be frankly dishonest in that regard.

One of the reasons why I choose to continue dialoging with you is because I find this topic to be very interesting, educational, and even enjoyable. Another reason is that I find your position on medicine in general to be partially erroneous and potentially dangerous to other readers. Therefore, I have continued posting in order to show other readers that there are valid viewpoints which differ from your own.

Paulos
May 19th, 2010, 08:44 PM
In response to my claim that the Locrians (a tribe of ancient Greece) had a law against drinking wine undiluted with water unless prescribed by a doctor, the penalty for which was death, Nazaroo wrote:


Do you honestly think the above has any historical reality to it? What crap. I'm glad I wasn't drinking wine while reading this, or else the wine might have come out my nose (and ***).

The Locrians did indeed have laws against drinking fermented wine unless it was either diluted with water or prescribed full-strength by a doctor. Perhaps you wish to balk at this because it sounds too draconian to be true, but where do you think the term "draconian" came from in the first place? It came from the name of a Greek lawmaker from the city of Athens called Draco:


Draco: Athenian lawgiver whose harsh legal code punished both trivial and serious crimes in Athens with death--hence the continued use of the word draconian to describe repressive legal measures. (Source: http://history-world.org/draco_and_solon_laws.htm )

And Draco wasn't the only harsh lawgiver in Greece. Roughly contemporaneous with Draco was the lawgiver named Zaleucus, whose laws were followed for several centuries after his death. (He executed himself for breaking one of his own laws.) One of his laws called for the death penalty to anyone who drank undiluted wine unless they had a doctor's prescription to do so. Don't believe me? Look into it for yourself. Here are a couple of links to help you on your way:

http://www.locriantica.it/english/figures/zaleukos.htm

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/YAK_ZYM/ZALEUCUS.html

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that the ancient Greek attitude towards wine-drinking was similar to the view held by the ancient Hebrews, but that isn't quite correct. Contrast Zaleucus' law with the Bible. Where in the legal code of the Bible is the death penalty issued for drinking undiluted fermented wine? Yes, excessive undiluted fermented wine drinking is cautioned against, it is certainly said to be unwise, and in the New Testament hell in the afterlife is listed as a consequence, but nowhere in the Bible is it listed as a "crime" per se to drink fermented wine, or even to get drunk--unless you are a priest about to minister in the tabernacle.


Jews were stubborn to the point of death by torture and sword in resisting Greek culture, including boozing. Just read all the books of the Maccabees, conveniently left out of Protestant Bibles, for the purpose of enabling drug-dealing, and booze-running to minors.

We all know by now that these assertions of yours are false, but just to prove my point even further (as if it hasn't been proven sufficiently already), the book of Sirach was written contemporaneously with the books of the Maccabees, and here is what Ben Sira had to write about wine-drinking:


Sirach 31:27-31
27 Wine is as good as life to a man, if it be drunk moderately: what is life then to a man that is without wine? for it was made to make men glad.
28 Wine measurably drunk and in season brings gladness of the heart, and cheerfulness of the mind:
29 But wine drunken with excess makes bitterness of the mind, with brawling and quarreling.
30 Drunkenness increases the rage of a fool till he offend: it diminishes strength, and makes wounds.
31 Rebuke not your neighbor when wine is served, nor put him to shame while he is merry; Use no harsh words with him and distress him not in the presence of others.

Source: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach31.htm

The above passage speaks very clearly and undeniably, so there can be no quibbling on your part about whether Ben Sira was referring to unfermented grape juice instead of fermented wine.

Face it, Nazaroo, your strict prohibitionist position has more in common with the pagan Greek lawgivers than it does with the Hebrews.

Nazaroo
May 19th, 2010, 10:12 PM
You are being absurd. We are talking about wine here, not pure alcohol. Wine is neither an "industrial solvent" nor is it a "systemic poison". Furthermore, even by "the subtlety of your figure of speech", I am not "selling alcohol".


No amount of quibbling will change the fact that modern wine is packaged and sold as a recreational drug.

The majority of North American purchasers of wine, beer and liquor do so to get high and drunk.

The number of "wine connoisseurs " who buy it to sip with an expensive gourmet dinner is probably less than 1% of the market. For one thing, most people simply aren't wealthy
connoisseurs. They're working class people who want to party and get high after work and on weekends, if they even have a job.

By promoting the continued use of alcohol in all its popular forms, such as modern wine and beer, and liquor, you are indeed aiding and abbetting drug dealers.

Accept your sin, and drink up.



I am simply presenting the balanced scriptural and medical viewpoint on wine consumption, both the good and the bad. Nothing I have posted can serve to justify the excessive use of wine, beer, or any other fermented drink--quite the contrary.
This is certainly true. But this makes you the most dangerous and hideous drug dealer/promoter of all. The kind that is not easily identified, but one that perpetuates an evil whose damage to the community is overwhelming and immeasurable.






1 Corinthians is not 2 Corinthians. Paul is known to have written several epistles that are no longer extant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles#Lost_Pauline_Epistles

And here is where any hope of reasoning with you becomes impossible.
Thanks for admitting what I pointed out before you did. Since you are now trying to take credit for my point, you are right; your lack of honesty makes reasoning with you almost impossible.


I have seen you cast aspersions on the gospel of Matthew or portions thereof, the book of Numbers or portions thereof, and now you are doing the same with Paul's letters to the Corinthians. I don't mean to sound too harsh, but I find you to be frankly dishonest in that regard.
These documents are simply what they are historically. I recognize their authority, where it is due, and recognize tampering where that has occurred.

Anyone looking at the Synoptic Problem must acknowledge the literary dependence between them and the priority of Mark, if they are sensible.




One of the reasons why I choose to continue dialoging with you is because I find this topic to be very interesting, educational, and even enjoyable.
Glad you admit you are enjoying yourself. Others have offered different pretensions.




Another reason is that I find your position on medicine in general to be partially erroneous and potentially dangerous to other readers. Therefore, I have continued posting in order to show other readers that there are valid viewpoints which differ from your own.If so, you have failed your readers utterly. You haven't posted anything which corrects any "erroneous view" of medicine.

In fact, I haven't posted such: Instead I gave GOOD advice in the medical sphere, namely, Don't apply prescriptions meant for someone else's condition to yourself. They aren't transferable.

How that translates into "bad medical advice" I'll never know.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
May 19th, 2010, 10:31 PM
...the Locrians (a tribe of ancient Greece) had a law against drinking wine undiluted with water unless prescribed by a doctor, the penalty ...death,
...
where do you think the term "draconian" came from in the first place? It came from the name of a Greek lawmaker from the city of Athens called Draco:
(blah blah blah)
...
And Draco wasn't the only harsh lawgiver in Greece. Roughly contemporaneous with Draco was the lawgiver named Zaleucus, ...
(blah blah blah)...


Nobody is disputing that draconian lawgivers existed in Greece. Even under Alexander, it was a military dictatorship after all. Lawgivers are by very definition draconian.

None of these anachronistic and misplaced counter-examples contradict the Great War between the Greeks and the Hebrews over the great laxity of the Greek occupying armies and their abominable heathen practices, including excessive drinking, whoring, sporting, and eating unclean garbage.

In short, the Greeks of Alexander's army were pigs. You are what you eat.

And no amount of posturing can cover up the huge violent guerrilla war between the Greeks and Hebrews over this issue.

Your claim that the Greeks and Hebrews held similar views on wine is absurd, and based on a misuse of the historical evidence, and suppression of the whole history of Alexander.



Yes, excessive undiluted fermented wine drinking is cautioned against, it is certainly said to be unwise, and in the New Testament hell in the afterlife is listed as a consequence, but nowhere in the Bible is it listed as a "crime" per se to drink fermented wine, or even to get drunk--unless you are a priest about to minister in the tabernacle.


It is certainly true that the picture presented in the O.T. is unfocussed, and at times unclear and confused.

This is just what we would expect the case to be before modern scientific and medical investigation of drug addiction and drug culture.

At times the Bible does speak out against the more obvious excesses in recreational drug abuse. But we should not expect the Biblical writers to be fully cognisant of the insidiousness of drug addiction and its devastating impact upon the family unit and the community.

We have no such excuse now. The fact that alcohol is a devastating, crippling, addictive recreational drug is well known.

We don't need the Bible to affirm this, and we can't expect the Bible to have this modern insight, but its testimony is nonetheless clear enough about obvious cases of recreational drug abuse and addiction, and its consequences.






...but just to prove my point even further (as if it hasn't been proven sufficiently already), the book of Sirach was written contemporaneously with the books of the Maccabees, and here is what Ben Sira had to write about wine-drinking:

The above passage speaks very clearly and undeniably, so there can be no quibbling on your part about whether Ben Sira was referring to unfermented grape juice instead of fermented wine.


This is incredible. Ben Sira is of course rejected by all modern Protestantism as worthless, and full of superstition.

But also, it dates from long AFTER Jesus, and comes from Egypt, where beer-making was invented, and slavery was an institution.

It is also well-known that Ben Sira was not a Biblical O.T. Israelite, but a "modern" Jewish philospher heavily influenced by the Greeks, the very people that the Palestinian Hebrews were at WAR with.

Had any of the Maccabees heard the teachings of Ben Sira and other HELLENIZED Egyptian "Jews", they would have stoned them to death as heretics.

Ben Sira and the book of 1st Maccabees have nothing in common: completely different ages, geographical locations, people, cultures, and religions.



Face it, Nazaroo, your strict prohibitionist position has more in common with the pagan Greek lawgivers than it does with the Hebrews.
I heartily assent to the death penalty for drug-dealing.

That includes those who corrupt our culture and community by promoting recreational alcohol use, like yourself.

peace
Nazaroo

Gerald
May 19th, 2010, 10:32 PM
On Judgement Day, I'm sure God will play back the video for you, so you can trace all the significant consequences of your own actions, that may have skipped your notice.That would actually be quite interesting, given my habit of ignoring people when I'm out and about.

To see what ultimately became of all those I've passed by over the years, without so much as a glance or a word.

You might compare me to the guy in the parable, who buried the talent. :chuckle:

Nazaroo
May 19th, 2010, 10:41 PM
That would actually be quite interesting, given my habit of ignoring people when I'm out and about.

To see what ultimately became of all those I've passed by over the years, without so much as a glance or a word.

You might compare me to the guy in the parable, who buried the talent. :chuckle:

I think from the above that you would be better matched to the priest and the Levite in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. :chew:

The guy who buried the talent, you may notice from a careful re-read, only had one talent.... :scripto:

Nazaroo

Gerald
May 19th, 2010, 11:49 PM
I think from the above that you would be better matched to the priest and the Levite in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. :chew:
True enough. I'm very good at "passing by on the other side". Only saints and fools voluntarily avail themselves of other people's problems.

The guy who buried the talent, you may notice from a careful re-read, only had one talent.... :scripto:
And he got the bum's rush for not being willing to stick his neck out with it, which is pretty unreasonable of his lord.

And if I didn't know better, Naz, I'd think you were taking a cheap shot!

But that's not something an avowed Nazarite would do, so that can't be the case.

If you took a cheap shot, you'd be acting an awful lot like...well...me. :D

Paulos
May 20th, 2010, 07:04 PM
The majority of North American purchasers of wine, beer and liquor do so to get high and drunk.

Is that what I'm advocating? No, it isn't. I'm advocating that no one should drink beer or wine if they don't want to. But for those who do, I advocate that they limit their consumption to no more than one or two glasses in a 24 hour period, which is what the best medical evidence recommends as the limit. Anything more than that is both sinful from the biblical perspective and harmful from the medical perspective.


By promoting the continued use of alcohol in all its popular forms, such as...liquor, you are indeed aiding and abbetting drug dealers.

Excuse you? Where on this thread have I promoted "liquor"? Quote for me the text where I have done this.


This is certainly true. But this makes you the most dangerous and hideous drug dealer/promoter of all.

What is certainly true? That I am simply presenting the balanced scriptural and medical viewpoint on wine consumption? And for that I am "the most dangerous and hideous drug dealer/promoter of all"?


Thanks for admitting what I pointed out before you did. Since you are now trying to take credit for my point, you are right; your lack of honesty makes reasoning with you almost impossible.

I did not try to take credit for your point. I contradicted your point. You claimed that "1st Corinthians is actually 2nd Corinthians", which is nonsense. Then I pointed out to you that at least several of Paul's letters are not extant, and that it is one of these non-extant letters that Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 5:9. Paul was not referring to Second Corinthians as his first letter to them, as you claimed.


These documents are simply what they are historically. I recognize their authority, where it is due, and recognize tampering where that has occurred.

You recognize tampering in the Bible wherever you choose to disagree with the Bible. Your personal opinion is more important to you than what the Bible says. Rather than change your personal opinion to match the Bible, you will change the Bible to match your personal opinion.


Glad you admit you are enjoying yourself. Others have offered different pretensions.

"Pretensions", you say? Your choice of words speaks volumes:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pretension

Gerald
May 20th, 2010, 07:34 PM
You recognize tampering in the Bible wherever you choose to disagree with the Bible. Your personal opinion is more important to you than what the Bible says. Rather than change your personal opinion to match the Bible, you will change the Bible to match your personal opinion.

"Pretensions", you say? Your choice of words speaks volumes:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pretension
[stage whisper]

Psst! Remember, Nazaroo is Holy™, so what he says about stuff carries much more weight that anything an ordinary pissant like you or me could ever bring to bear.

[/stage whisper]

Nazaroo
May 20th, 2010, 07:53 PM
I did not try to take credit for your point. I contradicted your point. You claimed that "1st Corinthians is actually 2nd Corinthians", which is nonsense. Then I pointed out to you that at least several of Paul's letters are not extant, and that it is one of these non-extant letters that Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 5:9. Paul was not referring to Second Corinthians as his first letter to them, as you claimed.




This is why its nearly pointless to get into an intellectual battle with an unarmed man.

My point, which to this day has gone over your head, and still shows no signs of sinking in, is this:

In saying that 1st Cor. is actually 2nd Cor., and referencing Paul's mention of a previous letter, the obvious point is that 1st Cor. was not the first letter Paul sent.

Therefore it must be the 2nd at least or possibly even the 3rd 4th or 5th.

Nobody was talking about the traditional "2nd Corinthians", yet another letter, now wrongly known by that name, written by Paul.

It naturally follows that if there was a previous letter (1st Cor.), then not only would 1st Cor. actually be 2nd. Cor., but then obviously 2nd. Cor. would have to be renamed 3rd Cor.

Is it just the heat down there that makes Americans so stupid?

peace
Nazaroo

Gerald
May 20th, 2010, 07:57 PM
Is it just the heat down there that makes Americans so stupid?Nah, Americans have been stupid from the get-go.

It was beginner's luck that they made themselves a bigger pain than the British thought they were worth.

I take it you're Canadian?

Nazaroo
May 27th, 2010, 03:17 AM
Now Jamaica is torn by civil war, and will be under Martial Law for the next month.

Why? Because it is a major transport point for drugs destined for North American markets, and is run by Jamaican drug lords.

They have had to call in the army just to arrest drug dealers, who have armed themselves with machine-guns. What kind of drugs? Simply marijuana and cocaine.

Another whole country torn to shreds, the fallout from recreational drug abuse.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
May 28th, 2010, 06:21 AM
In another amazing but terrifying developing story, the death toll in Mexico has now approached 30,000 people in the last three years, all murdered by Drug Cartels supplying marijuana and cocaine to the USA. The entire population of Mexico is devastated, traumatized and terrified by these monsters, who seem to have been unleashed like demonic forces, hacking people's heads and hands and feet off, and throwing the body-parts in the streets.

And its all driven by the powerful demonic force of the American Drug Market.

Its so bad that Mexico has appealed to the USA and Canada for help.

The US has allocated another 20,000 troops to patrolling a border increasingly hostile, dangerous and violently deadly.

The Mexican president is the first and only Mexican leader to stand up against the Drug lords. And only support of his plan to resist them can give any hope of a future peace in Mexico.

This is the true cost of "free recreational drug abuse" in North America. another whole country's women, children, and helpless innocents mowed down like grass by monsters on a scale almost incomprehensible.

Only Americans can truly help stop this utter madness, by stopping recreational drug abuse.

And this has a dire warning that comes from the Book of Esther:

"Do not think to yourself that you will escape over the others, if you hold your peace at this time. For deliverance will arise from elsewhere while your own house is destroyed..." (Esther 4:13-14)

peace
Nazaroo

Granite
May 28th, 2010, 06:43 AM
This keeps getting better, now he's a Canadian unshaved self-righteous nut.:chuckle:

Nazaroo
May 28th, 2010, 08:43 AM
This keeps getting better, now he's a Canadian unshaved self-righteous nut.:chuckle:

Glad you can joke about 30,000 people hacked to death with machetes, so that you can smoke pot. Maybe you should take a vacation in Mexico, and let me know how it goes.

Nazaroo
May 29th, 2010, 07:30 AM
Here's what you can look forward to for your vacation in Mexico:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/23/mexico-drug-wars-cartels

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/11/mexico-drug-war-deaths


How it Affects Americans:


The number of U.S. citizens killed in Mexico has more than doubled to 79 in 2009 from 35 in 2007, according to the U.S. State Department's annual count. No figures were available for the first two months of 2010.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/20/mexicos-drug-war-takes-growing-toll-americans-1304439007/"Alcapulco Gold": - smoke up...


The drug wars in Mexico took an ominous turn over the weekend when a pregnant US consulate employee and her husband were killed as they left a children's birthday party in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's most violent city. Only minutes earlier gunmen also killed the Mexican husband of another member of the consular staff and wounded his two children.
While a number of US citizens have been killed in Mexico's increasingly bloody drug wars between rival cartels, it is the first time an American government employee has been killed.
President Barack Obama has expressed outrage over the killings, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon promised a swift investigation.
The three died during one of the bloodiest weekends so far in Mexico, with nearly 50 people murdered in gang violence. Another 13 people were killed in a gangland shoot-out in the Pacific resort city of Acapulco on Sunday.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7061983.ece





Driven by USA Drug Markets:



During Calderon’s aggressive three-year drug offensive, the level of drug-related violence in the country has exploded. More than 45,000 soldiers have been deployed throughout Mexico to interfere in turf wars between cartels and root out cartel leaders. In the first 10 days of this year, a total of 283 people are believed to have died in drug-related violence in Mexico, which is more than double the number during the same period in 2009. In Ciudad Juarez alone, 227 killings related to drug activity occurred in January, promising an even bloodier year than last.

...
“The success of Mexico's frontal assault on drug production and trafficking is about as unlikely as the prospect that American society will clamp down on demand,” Castañeda writes (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/whats_spanish_for_quagmire?page=full) in this month’s Foreign Policy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/02/mexico-s-drug-fiasco/7942/
Whatever policy you believe would work here, the fact of the matter is that unless American recreational drug abuse stops, the problem will not go away.

Granite
May 29th, 2010, 08:38 AM
Glad you can joke about 30,000 people hacked to death with machetes, so that you can smoke pot. Maybe you should take a vacation in Mexico, and let me know how it goes.

Hmmm, well, let's see: I don't smoke pot and I did vacation in Mexico two years ago. Had a blast. Anything else?

Nazaroo
June 5th, 2010, 12:29 AM
1. A recent U.S. government report suggests that "Two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico." (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090212/analysis-mexico-failing-state)
2. Mexico has one of the highest kidnapping rates in the world: An average of 70 people are abducted (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090113/live-or-die-mexico) each month.
3. More than 1,100 guns found (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090401/investigation-us-retailers-fuel-mexicos-drug-wars) discarded at Mexico shooting scenes or confiscated from cartel gangsters were traced to Texas gun merchants in 2007.
4. One of Mexico's most notorious drug kingpins, Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman, escaped a maximum security prison in 2001 by driving out in a laundry truck. (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090404/meet-the-drug-lords)
5. This year Forbes magazine included Joaquin Guzman, a Mexican drug lord (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090404/meet-the-drug-lords), on its annual billionaires' list.
6. A drug cartel hood named "The Cook" (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090130/the-danger-singing-about-drugs) reportedly dissolved the bodies of 300 victims in acid as part of the grisly work he committed for crime bosses.
7. The FBI has reported 75 open cases (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090324/bringing-laredos-missing-home) of Americans kidnapped in Mexico.
8. In a poll by the daily newspaper La Reforma, Mexico City residents ranked public insecurity (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/worldview/090326/violence-threatens-mexicos-soul) as a worse crisis than the economy by a 5-to-1 margin. In the past year, 20 percent were crime victims.
9. In the past year, Mexico's civil drug war has claimed some 6,300 lives. (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090303/the-cross-border-bullet-trade)
10. Grammy-nominated singer Sergio Gomez was kidnapped (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090130/the-danger-singing-about-drugs) and his genitals were burned with a blowtorch in December 2007, presumably for singing narco corridos, or "drug ballads."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/mexican-drug-war-10-shock_n_187361.html
This is what recreational drug abuse in the USA provides funding to crime syndicates for.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
June 8th, 2010, 06:26 AM
Here's the latest in the horrific escalation of crimes against innocents caused by the Drug dealing Criminals:




http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_537199.html
Child deaths in drug war up


MEXICO CITY - MEXICO'S brutal drug war has killed some 913 children since December 2006, according to a rights group's report on the youngest victims of the scourge that has eluded a nationwide crackdown.
The Network for Children's Rights in Mexico pointed to the 'outrageous' number of children drawn into drug trafficking gangs 'for lack of alternative livelihoods,' estimating the figure at some 3,000 young vulnerable ones in a report published on Monday.

President Felipe Calderon's offensive against the country's watring criminal gangs has failed to stem the tide of the violence that has left over 22,700 people dead throughout Mexico in the last three years, despite the deployment of tens of thousands of troops and police.
His strategy has failed, the rights network said, as it called for the creation of a national agency dedicated to defending the rights of children. It said 823 children lost their lives in the fight against organised crime from December 2006 to December 2009 and more than 90 were killed in the first four months of this year alone.

That was a dramatic uptick from 2000-2006, when 503 children were killed in the crossfire. The group said the figures were culled from a confidential government report leaked to the Reforma newspaper in early April.

Children aged 15 through 17 and living in states bordering the United States were hit particularly hard.

Nazaroo
June 12th, 2010, 05:45 AM
Massacre in Mexican drug rehab centre






At least 30 gunmen burst into a drug rehabilitation centre in a Mexican border state capital and opened fire, killing 19 men and wounding several others.
The attack happened late on Thursday at the Faith and Life centre in Chihua-hua city, 210 miles south of the Texas border. The victims were roused from their beds shortly before 11pm and left face-down along a hallway, the centre's director, Cristian Rey Ramirez, said.
The attackers left messages accusing the victims, who ranged in age from 30 to 40 and included a blind man, of being criminals.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/massacre-in-mexican-drug-rehab-centre-1998333.html



In the same day, another 20 people were murdered throughout the same city, leaving at least 40 dead in just a few hours.

The true cost of recreational drugs continues to rise beyond belief.

All this is driven by USA markets and money.

peace?
Nazaroo

Paulos
June 12th, 2010, 11:14 AM
The true cost of recreational drugs continues to rise beyond belief.

Correction: The true cost of the war against drugs continues to rise beyond belief.

The answer to this predicament is to allow for these substances to be used and regulated within a safer, legal framework.


peace?

You've demonstrated throughout this thread that you have no interest in "peace", in spite of the fact that you like to sign off with the word. All you want is more war.

I hope that soon you and others will see the error of your thinking and allow for more freedom on these issues.

Nazaroo
June 12th, 2010, 03:13 PM
Correction: The true cost of the war against drugs continues to rise beyond belief.

The answer to this predicament is to allow for these substances to be used and regulated within a safer, legal framework.


Please elaborate on your promised successful plan to end the 90 murders per month in Mexico. I'm sure there will be several parts to it besides just "legalizing marijuana".






You've demonstrated throughout this thread that you have no interest in "peace", in spite of the fact that you like to sign off with the word. All you want is more war.

I hope that soon you and others will see the error of your thinking and allow for more freedom on these issues.

Nobody wants war.

But does a father have the right to defend his children against those who would enslave them with drugs and prostitute them for profit? I hope he does.

But there will be no peace until Americans stop buying drugs and alcohol. Excercise your consumer-powers now, and economically cripple organized crime gangs.

peace
Nazaroo

Gerald
June 12th, 2010, 05:16 PM
Nobody wants war.Speak for yourself!

War is one of the most profitable rackets ever invented.

Just ask anybody who holds stock in arms manufacturing companies...

Paulos
June 14th, 2010, 10:52 PM
Please elaborate on your promised successful plan to end the 90 murders per month in Mexico. I'm sure there will be several parts to it besides just "legalizing marijuana".

Have a look at this: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html


Nobody wants war.

But does a father have the right to defend his children against those who would enslave them with drugs and prostitute them for profit?

Sure, and according to the Bible, this is how fathers should defend their children:


"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6).

Nazaroo
June 15th, 2010, 11:57 AM
... according to the Bible, this is how fathers should defend their children:

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6).

Proverbs 22:6 is good advice, but its not a defence against organized drug dealers.

If you think it is, you are naive beyond belief.

The very nature of crime involves innocent victims, and the 2,000 murdered children in Mexico were not protected by having sensible fathers. They remain dead, and their families grieving.

If you were to recite Proverbs 22:6 to a father who has lost their child due to murdering drug gangs running rampant throughout Mexico, he would be right and just to bury you beside his child.

peace
Nazaroo

Paulos
June 15th, 2010, 06:44 PM
Proverbs 22:6 is good advice, but its not a defence against organized drug dealers.

If you think it is, you are naive beyond belief.

The very nature of crime involves innocent victims, and the 2,000 murdered children in Mexico were not protected by having sensible fathers. They remain dead, and their families grieving.

Please...surely you must know that I wasn't quoting Proverbs 22:6 in the face of armed, murderous gangs. Obviously a militant response is the appropriate one in that case. That doesn't alter the fact that a more enlightened approach to the drug issue would help heal the situation greatly, as nations such as Portugal have already discovered for themselves.

Nazaroo
June 16th, 2010, 01:12 AM
Please...surely you must know that I wasn't quoting Proverbs 22:6 in the face of armed, murderous gangs. Obviously a militant response is the appropriate one in that case.


Glad to hear you admit this.

Reality check shows armed, murderous gangs are real.




That doesn't alter the fact that a more enlightened approach to the drug issue would help heal the situation greatly,...

There is no healing for lost innocent children, until Resurrection Day.

Even if all drug dealers were rounded up and shot, there would be no healing.

There is only one real hope, the resurrection promised through Jesus the Christ.

There is only one true justice, the Judgement Throne of God.

There is only one resolution to drugs. Total destruction of all things that enslave people and leave them in darkness.

The only policy against drugs is a zero-tolerance policy. The same is true for guns and prostitution.

None of these things will enter the Kingdom of God.

leave them behind.

peace
nazaroo

Paulos
June 16th, 2010, 08:59 AM
Reality check shows armed, murderous gangs are real.

You aren't very swift, are you?


There is only one resolution to drugs. Total destruction of all things that enslave people and leave them in darkness.

The only policy against drugs is a zero-tolerance policy. The same is true for guns and prostitution.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you should have at least enough honesty to admit that your opinion contradicts the Word of God.

CabinetMaker
June 16th, 2010, 10:03 AM
If he was one of the co-conspirators that helped to give your son diabetes, and got him hooked on insulin, yes.

On the other hand, if your son got diabetes from following your advice in breaking the Biblical Food Laws of the Noahic Covenant, then I think you'll be going to hell instead, rather than the local cashier at the drugstore.

Was it you who allowed him to indulge in endless sugar-feedings as a kid, or did you allow him to use recreational drugs as a teen, because everyone else did too?

If those scenarios are familiar, I'd say you live in the neighborhood of modern Sodom. Gated community will take on a whole new meaning soon.

I think a lot of people will be surprised when Johnson & Johnson, Dow Chemical and hundreds of "legal" drug pushers are lined up alongside crack dealers and heroin pushers and thrown into the Lake of Fire.

There is a lot more built on sand, and which will pass away, than you can imagine at the moment.

peace
Nazaroo
Who's fault is it since diabetes is a genetic disorder? Given that God created DNA...

Seriously, you CAN NOT contract diabetes unless you have the genes for it. (I know this since I was recently diagnosed and attended a class on management)

Nazaroo
June 16th, 2010, 03:21 PM
Who's fault is it since diabetes is a genetic disorder? Given that God created DNA...

Seriously, you CAN NOT contract diabetes unless you have the genes for it. (I know this since I was recently diagnosed and attended a class on management)

Sorry to hear that you're deluded about your own medical condition.

Diabetes is not genetic.

Its caused by the modern industrial-chemical environment, the processed food industry, and a largely no longer secret race-war/ class-war meant to kill ethnics and the poor.

But if you want to believe the medical arm of the industrial-military complex over the truth of God, go ahead. Just don't pray for a cure in the same breath as your open speech against the Holy Spirit of the Living Creator.

Or you could just admit you're not really sure your doctor told you the whole truth, and that maybe a few industrial giants like Dow, Johnson&Johnson, BP, ITT, etc. had some hand in your predicament.

Then maybe God could help you out of your jam.

peace
Nazaroo

CabinetMaker
June 16th, 2010, 03:29 PM
Sorry to hear that you're deluded about your own medical condition.

Diabetes is not genetic.

Its caused by the modern industrial-chemical environment, the processed food industry, and a largely no longer secret race-war/ class-war meant to kill ethnics and the poor.

But if you want to believe the medical arm of the industrial-military complex over the truth of God, go ahead. Just don't pray for a cure in the same breath as your open speech against the Holy Spirit of the Living Creator.

Or you could just admit you're not really sure your doctor told you the whole truth, and that maybe a few industrial giants like Dow, Johnson&Johnson, BP, ITT, etc. had some hand in your predicament.

Then maybe God could help you out of your jam.

peace
Nazaroo
The only delusions I see here are yours. While it is certainly true that our diets can have a big impact on diabetes, it is also true that it is a genetic condition that predisposes a person to the condition. My daughter has a genetic condition that prevents her body from making cortisol. It is easily managed with cortef. So, what is her problem?

Nazaroo
June 16th, 2010, 03:35 PM
The only delusions I see here are yours. While it is certainly true that our diets can have a big impact on diabetes, it is also true that it is a genetic condition that predisposes a person to the condition. My daughter has a genetic condition that prevents her body from making cortisol. It is easily managed with cortef. So, what is her problem?

Since I don't buy into the modern medical model, with its 'politically correct' policy and ideology of not acknowledging culpability and sin in disease and illness, or informing the patient of the cause of their diseases, I can't really respond in a way you will accept.

I would of course, hold those who really know what is going on responsible, but since you don't believe they exist, we can't communicate intelligently on the topic.

Don't worry: in your ideological world, its nobody's fault, and nobody should be prosecuted.

peace
Nazaroo

CabinetMaker
June 16th, 2010, 04:09 PM
Since I don't buy into the modern medical model, with its 'politically correct' policy and ideology of not acknowledging culpability and sin in disease and illness, or informing the patient of the cause of their diseases, I can't really respond in a way you will accept.

I would of course, hold those who really know what is going on responsible, but since you don't believe they exist, we can't communicate intelligently on the topic.

Don't worry: in your ideological world, its nobody's fault, and nobody should be prosecuted.

peace
Nazaroo
Who in the world would really know what is going on?

Gerald
June 16th, 2010, 06:55 PM
Who in the world would really know what is going on?Somebody like Nazaroo, most likely. How convenient is that?

One wonders if he believes that evil spirits play some part in causing disease...

Nazaroo
June 16th, 2010, 11:22 PM
Posted by CabinetMaker Who in the world would really know what is going on?


Somebody like Nazaroo, most likely. How convenient is that?


Its not rocket science to read a newspaper.

Big corporations can't be trusted.
Just ask yourself if its really difficult to figure out what happened for instance,
with the Gulf Oil Disaster and BP (British Petrolium).

Did they follow their own industry safety standards? No.
Did they try to cover up the amount of oil pouring into the Gulf? Yes.
Have they stopped the disaster? No.

Do I need magic powers of perception or a conspiracy theory? No.

Can I read a newspaper? Yes.

What you can know is directly proportional to the amount of effort you make finding out.

QED

Nazaroo

Gerald
June 17th, 2010, 12:58 AM
Its not rocket science to read a newspaper.

Big corporations can't be trusted.That's the strangest spelling of "human beings" I've ever seen?


Just ask yourself if its really difficult to figure out what happened for instance,
with the Gulf Oil Disaster and BP (British Petrolium).

Did they follow their own industry safety standards? No.
Did they try to cover up the amount of oil pouring into the Gulf? Yes.
Have they stopped the disaster? No.

Do I need magic powers of perception or a conspiracy theory? No.

Can I read a newspaper? Yes.All of which in no way addresses the fact that you reject the modern medical paradigm (would Germ Theory be included in that?).


What you can know is directly proportional to the amount of effort you make finding out.
But you fail to take the next logical step, which is to ask yourself "How can I profit by what I've found out?"

Nazaroo
June 17th, 2010, 05:01 AM
"How can I profit ...?"This may be the "next logical step" for a selfish atheist, but if only you had a clue, you'd know its so far away from Christian ideology that it is essentially orthogonal to it:

"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it." (Mark 8:35)
To attempt to communicate to someone without even caring to comprehend their worldview and belief system is a waste of your own time. Why do you bother to post?

peace
Nazaroo

CabinetMaker
June 17th, 2010, 08:53 AM
Your questions are only half formed and intended to spin things to your own ends. They are dishonest.

Its not rocket science to read a newspaper.

Big corporations can't be trusted.
Just ask yourself if its really difficult to figure out what happened for instance,
with the Gulf Oil Disaster and BP (British Petrolium).

Did they follow their own industry safety standards? No. This is true enough
Did they try to cover up the amount of oil pouring into the Gulf? Yes. Did they? I'm not convinced they knew because flow meters are located at the surface so they have no way to measure the flow. Even the best scientists cannot accurately determine the exact flow. The fact that somebody does not know the exact number does not automatically make them a liar.
Have they stopped the disaster? No. Have they tried? Repeatedly. Have they been successful? Not yet. Why? This is the first deep water oil spill in history. It has a steep learning curve.

Do I need magic powers of perception or a conspiracy theory? No. No, but it rather obvious that you think everything is a conspiracy.

Can I read a newspaper? Yes. Comprehension is questionable.

What you can know is directly proportional to the amount of effort you make finding out. You need to put out more effort and learn about how drilling is done before you are qualified to judge BP's efforts.

QED

Nazaroo
How do the big medical corporations ruin our DNA? Please, be VERY specific, not just open ended allegations. Please show us how they accomplish it and show is that their intentions are nefarious.

Gerald
June 17th, 2010, 02:55 PM
To attempt to communicate to someone without even caring to comprehend their worldview and belief system is a waste of your own time. Why do you bother to post?I comprehend your belief system and worldview quite well, thanks; I just happen to strongly doubt its validity.

That said, just because I doubt the validity of a person's views doesn't mean I can't meaningfully communicate with that person: the questions I ask call for simple answers, simple answers that you (for example) seem most hesitant to give. Instead, you go off on a tangential rant.

As for why I bother to post, it is because I find this board and its denizens immensely entertaining! :thumb:

Nazaroo
June 17th, 2010, 05:07 PM
the questions I ask call for simple answers, simple answers that you (for example) seem most hesitant to give.

simple answers which only make sense according to your worldview, not mine. Simple answers that suggest a simpleton, who only bothers to post because he finds...


this board ...immensely entertaining! Thanks for making explicit your lack of any moral purpose.

peace
Nazaroo

Nazaroo
June 17th, 2010, 05:18 PM
Your questions are only half formed and intended to spin things to your own ends. They are dishonest.


Your marginal notes in red don't demonstrate any dishonesty on my part. They are just an ad hominem attack on my personal integrity. *yawn*
"That all you got?" - Mohammed Ali


How do the big medical corporations ruin our DNA? Please, be VERY specific, not just open ended allegations. Please show us how they accomplish it and show is that their intentions are nefarious.Example 1: By re-releasing into the public domain Thalidomide in third-world countries where they can't be policed. Thalidomide is banned in all Western countries.

http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/tsoutha.html


"Mainly used for the treatment of leprosy, Thalidomide has been a ongoing teratogen in South America. The re-marketing of Thalidomide for the treatment of many other disorders is likely to make control of its intake during early pregnancy quite difficult. According to the members of ECLAMC (a consortium of birth defects surveillance systems in South America), there were only 34 Thalidomide Embryopathies detected by members of ECLAMC since 1965 (E. E. Castilla et al., Teratology 54: 273, 1996). The ECLAMC experts stress that the current systems will have difficulty to detect potential epidemics of birth defects attributable to Thalidomide. There are thousands of other examples.

peace
Nazaroo

alwight
June 17th, 2010, 05:32 PM
"How can I profit ...?" This may be the "next logical step" for a selfish atheist, but if only you had a clue, you'd know its so far away from Christian ideology that it is essentially orthogonal to it:
This is disingenuous on at least two counts imo.

Firstly the context was actually that if you learn from experience you can quite honourably profit by it. A quote mine iow. I'm no fan of BP btw but even they and other oil companies may learn and yes ultimately profit (not "get profits") from this failure, much learning results from failure in engineering as history shows.

Secondly both theists and atheists worth their salt will profit from life's experience without being in anyway selfish.

So you rather seem to be on your own here.