Is it a sin to smoke marijuana?

[Isserus]

Oh yeah. The Bible really describes marijuana as the tree of life. (sarcasm)

Has anyone mentioned how many imperatives the Bible has in it about being sober-minded or how often we're commanded to not get drunk?

Do you think this might entail becoming impaired due to marijuana?

I'll leave that between you and God.

I'm not going to get into a debate, because quite frankly I'm seeing information posted that is just pure fabrications (lies). I work in insurance and see the risks everyday.

I think some people need to get their heads out of the sky and actually start taking the Bible in context as a serious follower of Christ would.

If you're not going to get into a debate then be silent.

The altered state of consciousness(by psychedelics), lumped into the same category as mind-numbing drunkenness, the kind received from boozing it, is foolish and unfounded.

Our entire interaction with the world is done through drugs. Everything. This is known, this is scientific fact. Many, many things alter your state of consciousness, some simply more than others. Our society has not grown up with psychedelics like some of the other cultures around the world. So it's a simple matter of we grew up with booze and cigarettes and when psychedelics were introduced america got scared and ran.

We have no business saying whether or not its immoral(since there is no indication in the bible) while people here insist on lumping benign psychedelics into a category with damaging drugs like alcohol and cigarettes.

 

[Isserus]

The Coptic Church, I believe, introduced the idea of Christ using cannabis oil.

Many believers use the fact that "there is no law besides that which God has established" as ammunition against the "heretical" idea that marijuana use is permissible. And yet many also fail to realize that drugs such as oxycodone, hydromorphone, morphine, fentanyl, etc. are responsible for a tremendous number of deaths, hospitalizations, and accounts of physical dependency. Most of the time death is caused by abuse, as with hospitalizations (I assume), but dependency can occur whether you're taking it as you're supposed to or not. This often causes MORE pain, which can be even more debilitating that what you were taking it for in the first place. It generally takes a while for the body to become addicted and produce severe withdrawal symptoms from what I understand, but even if you do as you're told by a doctor, these drugs are risky.

I couldn't find an exact number, but the number of deaths from prescription drug overdose in 2011 was higher than the number of deaths from traffic accidents.

Number of deaths from marijuana overdose? Zero. Still. Now this doesn't mean that there haven't been fatalities resulting from someone driving under the influence (or doing something equally stupid under the influence). Honestly in my opinion, that's just a lack of common sense. Marijuana does not just "do that" to people.

People all hear about the horrors of meth. Meth is short for methamphetamine. There is a weaker substance called amphetamine - and guess what that is? That's Adderall, the little orange pill that many, MANY parents give their children and teens every day. These two drugs share more than a name, though. They do the EXACT SAME THING - go into the brain and release high amounts of dopamine and norepinephrine. Dopamine is your pleasure and reward chemical; it's also associated with motor function. Excessive levels results in schizophrenia (why repeated use can result in "amphetamine" psychosis, a temporary condition that mimics it), too little dopamine results in Parkinson's disease and often contributes to depression. Norepinephrine is also known as noradrenaline. It is your fight or flight chemical. When a man pulls a gun, a vast amount of norepinephrine gets released, shutting down all other functions of your body (such as appetite or laughter) and forcing your brain to focus on the here-and-now to make a decision. For some reason, people with ADHD need adrenal stimulation to focus, and the respond well to the drugs' effect on these two neurotransmitters.

The only difference between meth and amphetamine, aside from the first one being made mostly in clandestine labs with a concoction of poisonous chemicals, is that the "methyl" prefix means that it is more easily soluble in water, making it easier to cross the brain-barrier. Your brain basically soaks more of it up, making it stronger and needing a lower dose to have the same effect. Either drug greatly increases your heart rate and blood pressure. They both cause excessive sweating and can lead to irritability, paranoia, hallucinations (at high or repeated doses), and can be neurotoxic. Long term meth users often fry the ends off of their dopamine receptors, drastically reducing their effectiveness and making it hard to feel any pleasure at all. Adderall, however, can do the same thing. (One of the MANY problems with meth is the fact that it's impossible to measure doses, and the most popular methods of intake - smoking and shooting - lead to extremely high blood concentrations of the drug, increasing its already strong effects on the nervous and cardiovascular system.)

Before you think that "well meth is too strong anyways, Adderall is weaker and safer", keep in mind that there is prescription meth available too - yes, methamphetamine hydrochloride, brand name Desoxyn.

Obviously most Christians don't endorse the abuse of prescription drugs, anyways. However, whether you believe they should be reserved for strict circumstances or not, the toxicology reports DON'T lie. If you're against the medical use of marijuana because of the harm it causes, surely you're also against the others, which are far more dangerous in every way. Problem is most people simply take a side - pot's illegal, it's bad; the other drugs are ok because the doctors said they were safe, and God wouldn't allow it anyways.

Adderall = speed; fentanyl is stronger than heroin (which is legal for a handful of uses in the UK)...

...marijuana is bad?

God bless people like yourself, providing clear evidence in the pursuit of truth. It's important to see how dangerous "drugs," like weed are not, not only so we might stop demonizing them, but to also open up the door to what might potentially be a therapeutic tool.

 

[audiologic]

God bless people like yourself, providing clear evidence in the pursuit of truth. It's important to see how dangerous "drugs," like weed are not, not only so we might stop demonizing them, but to also open up the door to what might potentially be a therapeutic tool.

Thank you. As you'll find in most of my posts here (not all of them, probably; I'll admit I sometimes fall into the same biased trap that others do), my intent is to encourage the unveiling of the truth - which is often darker/harsher than we'd like to think. There are definitely liberating and beautiful things which come with it too, but ignorance often reigns with the intent of keeping the masses "safe".

Overall, the opposition to marijuana can argue "It's bad for the lungs" or "It impairs mental function" or etc., but the truth is if you're going to use the "detrimental" health effects of marijuana as an argument against it, then SURELY prescription opiates - which can cause death and physical dependency - will be an even BIGGER target (in which case, why are you spending so much time debating the first?).

I am not opposed to the therapeutic use of prescription drugs for benefit, however. Many Christians I know say that their antidepressant helped them with their walk with God. More often than not, these drugs primarily stimulate serotonin (and sometimes norepinephrine or dopamine), which essentially leads to an altered state over time. Rather than being immediately "intoxicating", these provide a more long term change - this is not something you "come down" from or "crash" from, but actually provides a more complete change in perception, outlook, social interaction, and cognitive function. In some ways it could be argued that this is a clear violation of being "sober minded".

In reference to the last statement, let me re-iterate my interpretation of "sober minded" - don't have a cloudy head. To me, it's more of a general statement...don't be delusional, think clearly. Before someone attacks me for defending my rash, drug-ridden existence, let me remind them that I do not smoke marijuana, I do not drink in excess (and I rarely drink at all), I do not abuse prescription drugs, I do not take street drugs of any kind...

Be sober minded? Absolutely. There's a difference between being intoxicated and having an altered state, though. Even LSD is being used in medical testing here in the US once again. It was initially used in psychotherapy upon discovery; unfortunately, a bunch of smelly high school drop outs decided that taking 87 doses and listening to music for days on end sounded like a good idea. It was THOSE that gave it a bad name. Once again, a gun is not the problem; a gun in the hands of a child is the problem.

And unfortunately, despite the fact that we have prescription meth, GHB, and (things stronger than) heroin, marijuana seems to remain the number one target.

 

[Isserus]

There isn't anything wrong with taking 87 doses, period. You cannot OD. If that was the only thing a person did, then sure, i'd agree that's abusive behavior--a life out of balance will always, eventually come crashing down on the thing you value most.

I understand this urgent need to portray therapy in a way that lines up with our indoctrinated work ethic, that good things only come of long, hard work, but it's a misinformed, quite often inaccurate approach to some of these "street drugs." like lsd.

 

[audiologic]

There isn't anything wrong with taking 87 doses, period. You cannot OD. If that was the only thing a person did, then sure, i'd agree that's abusive behavior--a life out of balance will always, eventually come crashing down on the thing you value most.

I understand this urgent need to portray therapy in a way that lines up with our indoctrinated work ethic, that good things only come of long, hard work, but it's a misinformed, quite often inaccurate approach to some of these "street drugs." like lsd.

I agree to an extent. Also, read my other posts above and you'll see that I certainly don't believe that the medical "professionals" should be the ones to determine what is right or wrong.

While there's nothing inherently wrong with 87 doses, I'm not talking about that specifically - I'm talking about the ones who overdid it and as a result, did stupid things under the influence. There have been no documented cases of LSD overdoses resulting in death. While I'm sure it's possible, you'd essentially have to jump in a bathtub full of acid in order to do so - an experience that would have no medical or recreational value.

However, I'm talking about ACTUAL abuse. I don't define abuse as taking something without the consent of a doctor - I define abuse as using something in a manner that is irresponsible or disrespectful.

The reason I brought up medical research is for those who deem such things necessary for the moral validity of a substance.

There are those who take the other extreme - those who say drugs are inherently good; take such-and-such, and you'll automatically become "enlightened". This is just as false.

The people who gave LSD - and all drugs in general - a bad name didn't just take it in excess, they lacked a sense of self-control, respect, and responsibility. I'm talking about the people who took it and decided to drive down the wrong side of the interstate, the people that ran naked across the bridge, the people who thought they could fly. This led society to believe that surely something this "bad" could bring about nothing but "evil".

And yeah, it's hard for me to believe that someone thinking "I think I'll take 100 hits today" wasn't trying to essentially commit spiritual or intellectual theft. Using something as an aid is one thing...using it as the answer is another.

Then again this may need to go to another thread.

 

[Isserus]

I agree to an extent. Also, read my other posts above and you'll see that I certainly don't believe that the medical "professionals" should be the ones to determine what is right or wrong.

While there's nothing inherently wrong with 87 doses, I'm not talking about that specifically - I'm talking about the ones who overdid it and as a result, did stupid things under the influence. There have been no documented cases of LSD overdoses resulting in death. While I'm sure it's possible, you'd essentially have to jump in a bathtub full of acid in order to do so - an experience that would have no medical or recreational value.

However, I'm talking about ACTUAL abuse. I don't define abuse as taking something without the consent of a doctor - I define abuse as using something in a manner that is irresponsible or disrespectful.

The reason I brought up medical research is for those who deem such things necessary for the moral validity of a substance.

There are those who take the other extreme - those who say drugs are inherently good; take such-and-such, and you'll automatically become "enlightened". This is just as false.

The people who gave LSD - and all drugs in general - a bad name didn't just take it in excess, they lacked a sense of self-control, respect, and responsibility. I'm talking about the people who took it and decided to drive down the wrong side of the interstate, the people that ran naked across the bridge, the people who thought they could fly. This led society to believe that surely something this "bad" could bring about nothing but "evil".

And yeah, it's hard for me to believe that someone thinking "I think I'll take 100 hits today" wasn't trying to essentially commit spiritual or intellectual theft. Using something as an aid is one thing...using it as the answer is another.

Then again this may need to go to another thread.

Weed is a mild hallucinogen, so it's still relevant to the op.
I truly believe that "drugs" such as lsd, weed, and other "ethogens" are tools that have long since been misused. There are clear indications of this. When the benefits are examined, we see hundreds upon thousands of testimonies, people giving their personal experiences. These people express profound perspective shifts leading to more fulfilling lives.This isn't a method to replace god or religion, it's a tool to be used alongside. The trouble mostly revolves around the idea that we as a nation have not grown up with hallucinogens, unlike many other cultures around the planet. Because we are still in our infancy--only a handful of decades into the discovery of psychedelics, most of which was buried information, and lies spread about its true nature/potential, the general reaction towards these "drugs" stems from fear of the unknown and the prospect of change. Survival of the fittest, scrambling to survive, as a people, as a nation, no longer is necessary. However, those people who are highly invested in the current game, the way our economy and our ethical principle work. The ethical shift from me trying to beat you out to survive is fading into the past as we push forward into a collaborative people who help eachother to succeed. The idea that people are incapable of this is a conditioned lie, told to us so that we might remained shacked, bound by our own fears as we give control and responsibility to big government, big business, and at the top, big banks.

 

[Musky Hunter]

I believe that it is not a sin to smoke marijuana if it is legal to do so.

 

[Isserus]

I believe that it is not a sin to smoke marijuana if it is legal to do so.

I realize that the op speaks more to the moral justification of its use, currently, while it is illegal. But is simply saying it's morally justifiable once it's legal good enough?

There are many people who use marijuana as religious sacrament, and yes, that includes christians, though perhaps less mainstream. Don't our free liberties, like the ones that protect our right to practice religion in the first place deserve to be fought for? Aren't our freedoms, much like our freedom to choose to come to christ, worth fighting for? The prohibition of these ethogens is a violation of these rights to freedom.

When abortion laws or laws supporting same sex marriage are stirred in this country, suddenly we, the christian community, have a lot of political presence. It would seem that the mainstream christian community picks and chooses which stand points to impose onto a governing body whose people aren't even all believers anyway; so why is the law suddenly such a damning and defeating issue here?

 

[Musky Hunter]

I realize that the op speaks more to the moral justification of its use, currently, while it is illegal. But is simply saying it's morally justifiable once it's legal good enough?

There are many people who use marijuana as religious sacrament, and yes, that includes christians, though perhaps less mainstream. Don't our free liberties, like the ones that protect our right to practice religion in the first place deserve to be fought for? Aren't our freedoms, much like our freedom to choose to come to christ, worth fighting for? The prohibition of these ethogens is a violation of these rights to freedom.

When abortion laws or laws supporting same sex marriage are stirred in this country, suddenly we, the christian community, have a lot of political presence. It would seem that the mainstream christian community picks and chooses which stand points to impose onto a governing body whose people aren't even all believers anyway; so why is the law suddenly such a damning and defeating issue here?

We are called to follow human laws where they do not contradict Gods laws.

Personally, I strongly support the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and will vote my belief in this area.

 

[Isserus]

We are called to follow human laws where they do not contradict Gods laws.

Personally, I strongly support the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and will vote my belief in this area.

And you don't think the first amendment supports ideals found in the bible, found in the very relationship we have with god, our freedom to choose him or reject him?

I'm a pacifist, to the core, so i strongly believe violence is never a morally justified answer, ith the exception of pure self-defense. However, though my methods(or at least, the ones i support) may be non-violent in nature, i would stand against a tyrannical government, as it is constitutional. Are you telling me the bible explicitly(or reasonably) says we should, in that event, just be silent?

I'm aware that the bible and the constitution are to different things, and frankly should be further separated than they currently are, but aren't the freedom based ideals found in both?

And what happens when marijuana is used as religious sacrament? Not as a supplement, replacement, focus, numbing, escaping, or otherwise insidious "drug," but as a sacrament. The use of marijuana and living a christ filled life are not mutually exclusive. They just simply aren't.

 

[7he4uthor]

Monsantos cannabis

plants that are mature in 7 weeks advertised in a pot-shop I walked into 3 hrs ago.
The owner agreed that these are GMO.
We are both advanced enough in this field to know.

Google

 

[7he4uthor]

Personally, I strongly support the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and will vote my belief in this area.

Very cute.

BTW elections are fraud, [pls efducate yourself
Google

and this has been proven many times
or you don't remember the 2 Bush elections, Reagan, Clinton, and many more.

Google

The bible states :

Satan rules this world.

And you will wait for his/her/its approval to smoke pot.

Very cute.

Its hard to tell who we talk to on forums.
-Age
-Education
-Cultural Heritage
-Background
-Psy-Profile

 

[Isserus]

Is the condescension really necessary? I mean, after all, you just quoted one, or rather, part of one bible verse and left it at that. It's so vague and general it's laughable. You have the audacity to suggest we become educated, when education reveals that marijuana is not the demonized deliriant that it's been made out to be.

It's impossible to argue with people who say things like that, using a fear tactic by bringing up satan when it absolutely does not apply. You're argument suggest that the because it's satans world, the things of it are all inherently evil, and need no further examination--this is not a christian belief.

 

[audiologic]

Very cute.

BTW elections are fraud, [pls efducate yourself
Google

and this has been proven many times
or you don't remember the 2 Bush elections, Reagan, Clinton, and many more.

Google

The bible states :



And you will wait for his/her/its approval to smoke pot.

Very cute.

Its hard to tell who we talk to on forums.
-Age
-Education
-Cultural Heritage
-Background
-Psy-Profile

I agree, especially with waiting for "his/her/its approval". If Satan is the ruler of this world, then his power runs rampant through the political authorities. However, I do NOT take the stance that every politician is corrupt. I definitely find it hard to trust the "big names", though. I've only voted for those who haven't had any real chance of getting in - not for the REASON they won't get in, but because they seem more genuine and honest.

Bottom line, though: none of us know what's going on. The people who conjure conspiracies are as ignorant as those who blindly follow the government. It's all mere speculation; don't believe everything you hear, but don't doubt it because you're convinced that "the government is evil".

Now...once again, I agree with the person I quoted on a number of things.

I also DO believe "there is no Law besides that which God has established" in a certain light. Obviously, if a law is morally destructive, there is a right for it to be broken. If the law states that you must kill a homosexual, it should be overthrown. HOWEVER, you have to really ask yourself: "Is my legal violation occurring for a just or constructive/reasonable cause, or am I simply excusing myself and using this argument as rationalization?" If I lived in a militant society that outlawed all religion, yes, I would violate the law - for good reason. I would feel morally obliged to talk about God to those who needed hope. And if I was dying of cancer and needed to eat, yes, I would smoke marijuana to stimulate my appetite, even if it was illegal.

However, if you take it too far (as I did long ago), pretty soon it becomes: "I can take ecstasy to connect with God; the law is unjust!" and that THEN becomes "I can take meth because it is ecstasy's sister drug; the law is unjust!"

Keep in mind that in highly functional societies, the laws are in place for good reason - I don't think you have to follow them to a tee, nor do I think they should be blatantly violated. When it comes to details, or items that are genuinely debatable, it's between you and God.

 

[audiologic]

Long story short, find balance. Don't feel enslaved to laws that were doctored by humans, but don't assume that they didn't have some divine influence and violate them because "Satan made them because he rules the world". Rather, find some middle ground.

Balance.

Those yin/yang folks were on to something. And it's really just common sense.

 

[Isserus]

I agree, especially with waiting for "his/her/its approval". If Satan is the ruler of this world, then his power runs rampant through the political authorities. However, I do NOT take the stance that every politician is corrupt. I definitely find it hard to trust the "big names", though. I've only voted for those who haven't had any real chance of getting in - not for the REASON they won't get in, but because they seem more genuine and honest.

Bottom line, though: none of us know what's going on. The people who conjure conspiracies are as ignorant as those who blindly follow the government. It's all mere speculation; don't believe everything you hear, but don't doubt it because you're convinced that "the government is evil".

Now...once again, I agree with the person I quoted on a number of things.

I also DO believe "there is no Law besides that which God has established" in a certain light. Obviously, if a law is morally destructive, there is a right for it to be broken. If the law states that you must kill a homosexual, it should be overthrown. HOWEVER, you have to really ask yourself: "Is my legal violation occurring for a just or constructive/reasonable cause, or am I simply excusing myself and using this argument as rationalization?" If I lived in a militant society that outlawed all religion, yes, I would violate the law - for good reason. I would feel morally obliged to talk about God to those who needed hope. And if I was dying of cancer and needed to eat, yes, I would smoke marijuana to stimulate my appetite, even if it was illegal.

However, if you take it too far (as I did long ago), pretty soon it becomes: "I can take ecstasy to connect with God; the law is unjust!" and that THEN becomes "I can take meth because it is ecstasy's sister drug; the law is unjust!"

Keep in mind that in highly functional societies, the laws are in place for good reason - I don't think you have to follow them to a tee, nor do I think they should be blatantly violated. When it comes to details, or items that are genuinely debatable, it's between you and God.

Your ideas of "is it constructive/reasonable..." is a general, sensible opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. you simply cannot then go about using that opinion as moral justification, not to a christian, not to a non-christian.

Also you mentioned the slippery slope argument, saying it could eventually lead to justifying the use of mdma(which, in my book, also has no justifiable reason for its prohibition) or meth(meth is just extreme). This argument is invalid much in the way that the gateway theory is invalid. I would also like to point out how naive and arrogant we are as nation, still quite young regarding psychedelics. When you say there's a chance of using marijuana as religious sacrament eventually leading to the use and justifying of meth, you're disregarding the thousands upon thousands of years of cultures all around the world who have been using psychedelics, and they never wound up smoking meth or shootin' up. It's just more scared nonsense. scared of change and scared of rethinking social structures. Meanwhile enjoy your wine, you hypocrites(that last statement isn't referring to you, audio, you know we're brothers ).

 

[audiologic]

Your ideas of "is it constructive/reasonable..." is a general, sensible opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. you simply cannot then go about using that opinion as moral justification, not to a christian, not to a non-christian.

Also you mentioned the slippery slope argument, saying it could eventually lead to justifying the use of mdma(which, in my book, also has no justifiable reason for its prohibition) or meth(meth is just extreme). This argument is invalid much in the way that the gateway theory is invalid. I would also like to point out how naive and arrogant we are as nation, still quite young regarding psychedelics. When you say there's a chance of using marijuana as religious sacrament eventually leading to the use and justifying of meth, you're disregarding the thousands upon thousands of years of cultures all around the world who have been using psychedelics, and they never wound up smoking meth or shootin' up. It's just more scared nonsense. scared of change and scared of rethinking social structures. Meanwhile enjoy your wine, you hypocrites(that last statement isn't referring to you, audio, you know we're brothers ).

Exactly. I was ignorant and confused then, making the mistake of thinking "God is my Judge; therefore, I am above the law." But the whole point, of course, is that it's up to the individual whether they are going to abuse their divine connection in order to justify selfish actions, or whether they're going to use it in a manner that is more objective.

True, the constructive/reasonable argument is subjective - however, if we are aware (somewhat) of the nature of God and His reasons, you can still align your own beliefs with that which you know is solid. So in that sense, it is only subjective to an extent; it's only subjective when it comes to the fine print. And yes, I agree - some will argue my experience as "proof" that marijuana is a gateway drug...they completely misinterpret and once again minimize the element of free will and choice. The only thing that it is proof of is irresponsibility and selfish justification. In fact, taking the focus off of personal responsibility and placing it on the "addictive power of pot" is demeaning to the very nature that God instilled us with.

Of all the marijuana smokers I've met, very, VERY few of them were presently taking part in other heavier substances (including alcohol). Many more of them HAD taken those drugs in the past, but hadn't done so in a long time, and the MAJORITY (70% or so) simply smoked pot and nothing else. As you illustrated, many cultures have used it as a sacrament for a long time and they don't end up prostituting themselves for a fix.

Referring to your beginning statement, "You cannot use it as justification..." I don't use it as a justification for anyone but myself. If people learn from my story, good; if they don't, then it's either not fit for them, they have their own story, or they're not listening. No one should live by my specific standards - this is where free-thinking within reason comes in (and reason, of course, is that which the individual determines, but is also aligned with that which is solid, fixed, and unchanged).

Side note: I agree also with acknowledgement of hypocrisy when it comes to alcohol...many will drink until buzzed, or even drunk, quite often while they declare that marijuana is a sin. However, I don't think "enjoy your wine, you hypocrites" is 1. Polite or 2. Effective.

I agree with the heart of your statements, though.

 

[Jesusbecoming]

its a drug...how does this sound...yea that christian gets high or does drugs with his friends...as a police officer i would arrest your butt for having it on you...even if it might be not "Against your state" it is still against federal law so you can still be arrested by federal agents and federal officers...it smells so nasty as well...its not even classy...God created a plant and people are misusing and abusing it..its just like how God created sex and are abusing that..just because its not a crime against the state...is it still a crime in God's kingdom yes...as well weed and other drug substances can cause you to experience demonic influences and manifestation and hallucination...do you want to go on a demon ride..these things alter your mind and leave you targetable to the enemy.

I agree i had a demon ride yesterday kinda. God is in control at all times though. I smoked weed and i just dont know if its a sin. I smoked and im now closer to God and i went out and preached. I talked to satan and God. They both exist. Is satans the God of this earth what makes you think Satan is not the god of the sun and other planets, maybe even the Universe. THe only thing is Satan cant do anything God doesnt allow and God is the God of everything including this Universe. So when we say God is the God of everything and this Universe maybe satan is just trapped a certain way for years. Tormented. Idk we dont know,but i see him and hes def active. Repent and ask for mercy from God. Jesus loves you ya know.

 

[Thawhiteknight]

It's a hard question. But I'll give a hard answer. Could you seriously see Jesus smoking weed? I can't. Wwjd what would Jesus do. I like smoking weed. But I had to give it up for that reason I just said. If Jesus wouldn't do it I shouldn't either. Do I slip up from time to time yes. But I know I'm sinning and repent which means turning away from it. God bless you.

 

[Jig]

It's a hard question. But I'll give a hard answer. Could you seriously see Jesus smoking weed? I can't. Wwjd what would Jesus do. I like smoking weed. But I had to give it up for that reason I just said. If Jesus wouldn't do it I shouldn't either. Do I slip up from time to time yes. But I know I'm sinning and repent which means turning away from it. God bless you.

'What would Jesus do?' is a horrible question to ask if your going to base your answers in the societal framework of the 21st century. Jesus didn't live in this time period or in our culture.

This question would receive different answers if we played with these two elements. For instance, if you would have asked this question 150 years ago, what do you think the answer would be? It probably would have been more positive. Marijuana has been systematically vilified over the last 80 years. Before this time, it was a widely accepted plant that had a wide range of use ranging from medical to recreational.

This artificially stained image of marijuana is the reason some people are having difficulty viewing Jesus using marijuana.