Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
That's just it, medical science goes back and forth while we are being experimented on.
|
I don't think that is true. Individuals who are terminally ill with cancer, or who have severe PTSD episodes that render them incapable of managing their lives, epilepsy, Parkinson's, or any one of the many diseases listed in peer reviewed journals, volunteer to try the drug as a treatment. Many have tried other, more conventional means to no avail, and feel they have little left to loose in just trying cannabis or these other substances. So, while yes, it's experimental to some degree, it's more of a Hail Marry for the patient with the hopes of gaining some relief.
For me, I've tried years of prayer, fasting, pleading, and I've even tried bargaining with God. I've had various men pray for me, anoint me with oil, etc. I've tried to manage my diet caffeine intake, etc. I've tried EMDR therapy, which helped, but it wasn't a silver bullet. I'd have no problem trying medical cannabis. In all honesty, and please, don't mock this. Feel free to mock any part of this post if you like, but this is close to home for me... I don't know if I'll survive the next PTSD attack. If medical cannabis can offer me a regimen of treatment to get this under control while I continue to pray and seek God's healing hand, I'm all for it. It's only cannabis. It used to be legal in the U.S. and was a part of medications here for decades. It was only the Nixon era prohibition on cannabis, with the falsified studies, dishonest testimonies, underhanded legislation banning even the production of hemp that has made it so controversial. Back in 1850, if a medication included cannabis, or if one were to just smoke it in a pipe after dinner, it wasn't considered a "sin" nor a crime. Essentially, lifting prohibition on cannabis wouldn't be opening the door to a brave new world... it would be rolling back draconian legislation and returning America to the way it was before all the prohibition insanity and social engineering of the 1900's.
Quote:
|
Some things we thought to be advancements were actually step backwards as we are now finding with chemotherapy. Using THC and LSD as therapies will end up in the same dilemma years down the road. chemotherapy was first used in the 1940s.But just 78 years later we are finding that the practice is not only dangerous, but unnessercery for some patients. The use of cannabis as well as other psychotropic plants and fungi will be found to be just as bad or worse.
|
I think I can feel your heart in what you're saying above. And I don't entirely disagree. You're right, many "advancements" were actually a step backwards. However, I think it is foolish to think that any advancement will always be a step backwards. Wouldn't you know that part of what has cast doubt on chemo therapy overlaps with some of the research on cannabis therapies for cancer, pain, seizures, Parkinson's etc.?
The other thing I disagree with is the idea that even though you choose to believe that all advancements will be another step backwards, you seem to think that individuals who disagree with that idea shouldn't have the right to find out if that is true for themselves. If someone with a condition wishes to try one of these "advancements" in the hopes of finding relief, who are you or me to stand in their way? I was once told that people with Parkinson's shouldn't be able to use cannabis to relief their tremors and spasms because in many cases they would be high all the time and they wouldn't be able to function normally. But here's the rub... they already can't function normally. Many can't hold down jobs, or even walk to the kitchen to make a sandwich and pour some milk. Even if the cannabis made them "high", at least they gain the functional ability to make a sandwich on their own. The high (assuming the cannabis treatment used has THC) is the least of their worries.
Let people decide for themselves what they are willing to try. Many will try cannabis and decide it isn't for them. Many will try cannabis and discover a new lease on life. And those of us who don't want anything to do with cannabis, well, we can choose not to have anything to do with it.
Moral and spiritual condemnation isn't necessary before hand, especially in cases like these. I'm certain that there are saints of God taking medical cannabis in states where it is legal and it has helped them, and those who are not in the know have no idea. Now, if one starts missing church to burn a bowl to Lord Shiva and comes to church stoned when they do come, yes... I think the pastor should rebuke that kind of behavior. But such a rebuke would be warranted for anyone behaving badly with any substance.
Quote:
|
Cannabis is the sacred oil? The Levites were instructed to ingest the oil. Hemp served purposes throughout history, yet cannabis smoking or feeling the effect of the THC is not advocated in the Bible.
|
Eh, I think there's room to debate on that, but it isn't a hill worth dying on in my opinion. I'll explain the gist of the ideas some have proposed.
The sacred oil contained ingredients listed in Exodus. Calamus contains toxins, and scholars have wondered why calamus would be included in such a recipe. However, some Hebrew linguists have indicated that this "kaneh-bosem" is "canabos", the Greek for "cannabis", and not "calamus". Some say it is an error in translation. Others state that it is a deliberate attempt by Scribes to keep the exact recipe of the anointing oil a secret. The anointing oil was used to anoint sacred objects, priests, kings, and the sick. It was considered to bring blessing and healing (pain relief, sedation, and calm). If they did use cannabis in the holy anointing oil, these would be the effects if ingested through the skin. Some have pointed out that this "kaneh-bosem" might have even been an ingredient in the holy incense burned in the tent of meeting. This wouldn't have been especially odd or out of place in the regional culture. After studying the resin found in incense basins left by Scythian travelers and nomads it was confirmed that these Scythians would burn their sacred incense in their tents of meeting wherein they met with fellow traders, dignitaries, held special ceremonies, etc. The incense brought a sense of peace, calm, and light ease to those who sat inside the tents for deliberation. Essentially, they got buzzed or stoned in those tents, and that helped whatever negotiations being made go over more easily without heightened tensions. Those guests who attended these meetings felt blessed by their hosts as a result of breathing the smoke of the incense while congregated in the Scythian tents. It was like a peace offering.
Now, those who speculate about the ingredients of the holy incense believe that the tent of meeting among the Hebrews followed very similar principles. Only in this tent, Moses and the Priesthood were to meet with God. If the holy incense contained cannabis in the amount believed to have been used, Moses and the Priests would have breathed the smoke of the incense while meeting with God and carrying out their duties, bringing a sense of calm, peace, and relaxation. It would have relieved any physical pain and be felt as a blessing. The idea that an intoxicant would be used in biblical ritual isn't outlandish, the majority of Christians have always used wine as part of the Lord's Supper and in the OT those on pilgrimage to Jerusalem were to drink their fill of wine and strong drink as part of the Festival celebrations.
We're dealing with an ancient Middle Eastern culture with ancient Middle Easter ways. If this were so, it is no need to freak out. The Eastern mindset would have chalked it up to being a part of the blessing that comes from participation. For example, Frankincense and Myrrh are also known intoxicants when breathed in high concentrations, and they too have known healing properties.
Myrrh and Frankincense
Of the ‘chief spices' (literally ‘head spices’) listed in this paradisiacal garden from the Songs of Solomon, eight are identified and seven of them are known to tweak the brain. Both of the resinous gifts of the Magi, for example, are classed as tranquillizers today, though the label doesn’t do them justice. Myrrh targets mu- and delta-opioid receptors (like opium), and frankincense contains dehydroabietic acid which works on GABA receptors (like Valium).
The mode of action on the receptors, and therefore the resulting experience, is quite different from Valium, but the proof of that pudding is in the eating. You can chew up about the size of two peas to start with and go gently beyond that because at some point your intestinal flora will be offended. I think frankincense is lovely, Dioscordes wrote that it could cause madness. You have been warned.
Frankincense also contains incensole acetate, which works on the TRPV3 ion channel. In skin cells, TRVP3 is involved in temperature sensation, but it is also widely distributed in the brain where its functions remain a mystery. Whatever it does, since at least the 16th century BC people felt that it justified a 1,500-mile, six-month camel trek across bandit-infested deserts.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/histo...s-bible-009665
The point is... ancient Israel was an entirely different culture. Their perspective on these things were not clouded by the politics associated with them today. Whatever effects and benefits any substance provided in any given context, if positive and enjoyable, was considered a blessing from God through His creation.
Hybrid Mode
