Psychedelics & Divinity

[Incunabula]

I think people are overlooking the general problem with (Abrahamic) religion. It is not the belief which is inherently bad, it is the abuse by those who seek power which is bad. The problems we (I, too, hate the church) have has more to do with western society, which seeks to control, than with anything else. Please bear in mind that the bible was written by people, some may have their own agenda. It is not the direct word of god that is written, but the findings and interpretations of some people that they've uncovered through their spiritual journey. What we read is even more far off from "the word of god", since it is a translation made by the institution which infamously used that to keep those lowly peasants from thinking so they would mindlessly continue harvesting crops. This is bad, but has nothing to do with "psychedelic christianity". With wars, religion was just used to gain more power, money or land. This speaks to an inherent problem with our world, mindlessly following things is not exclusive to religion, no need to bash those that seek truth.

Good post, kidklmx. I can't say I totally agree with you though. It's a case of what comes first, the hen or the egg? religion is the cause of much evil in the world imo. Christian people aren't seekers of the truth! They are blind followers of nonsense. Controllable sheep.

What's the fucking point in picking the bad parts out of the bible? just to keep the parts you somewhat like. what's left? Why call yourself christian then? Or what ever kind of new-age christianity it seems people are defending here? I don't get it......

what is christianity without the old and the new testament? Being christian is worshipping that barbaric god from those 2 old texts. There's no way around it.

In my opinion there's other "spiritual paths" much more fit for the 21th century (and more beneficial to the world) than the completely backwards abrahamic religions. Because they are basically tearing our world apart.

Anyway, your very right about the off-topic rants ruining what was going on here, so I'm going to let this be my last post and hope that the thread will get back on topic.

^Much of the same can be said of science, but we do not blame science because people use it incorrectly

LOL whut? :D

The difference is that religion is the cause of wars. Science isn't. No one ever went out and assassinated abortion doctors because of science! No one flew planes into buildings because of science. No one ever occupied other peoples lands in the name of science. No one ever shot 63 innocent people in a shopping mall because of science.

No one ever went out and beat up a homosexual because it was written in the instruction manual that homosexuality was a sin. Because the instruction manual only tells you how to use your Ipod.

A gun is nothing but the technological advancement of a human being picking up a rock and throwing it at some one else.

You can't blame science for the weapons, you can only blame the humans who built/use them. But you can blame religion (the bible, the quran, or the tora) for starting wars, and giving people a moral excuse to commit mass murder on the infidels/pagans/enemies.

It's happened again and again, and it's happening right now!

Religion is a tool used by clever people to brain wash and control less clever people in politics. History tell's us this, and it's the same today. With religion you can make ordinary people commit horrible atrocities, and no, people wouldn't be commiting these atrocities if their priest, Imam or big wahoo wasn't urging them to.

What's the worst that could happen in the world we live in? That some fanatic muslim/christian terrorist get's hold of atomic weapons. because if you believe in a paradise in the after-life. If you believe that your faith is the one and only true faith, then there's a fucking big chance that your going to fire that atomic bomb into the face of the infidels.

all organised religion is dangerous (particularly monoteistic ones)

every christian, jew and muslim is a potential suicide bomber, in my opinion.

to quote richard dawkins quote in the god delusion.

"without religion good people would do good things, and bad people would do bad things.
but only religion can make a good man do bad things"

Take syria. What do you think it's about?

it's alawite's and shia's versus shiite's.
That's why children are being gassed and women are being raped, because of an old theological dispute!
It's very much like the 30 years war in the 16th century Germany (that was just catholics vs protestants)

And what about the christians in syria? they're long gone beause they were the first to get persecuted and killed.

I'm still seeing death, persecution, hate, suppression, along with some molested alter boys. But I just don't really see much else as far as Christianity and Psychedelics.

I don't see the connection either. But let's leave them their thread.

 

[Anon0631]

PLUS - and this is important: DMT is better than religion.

It provides us with instant access to all the fundamental questions about consciousness and the meaning of existence without making us so arrogant that we feel the need to find idiotically simplistic answers.

 

[Asante]

PLUS - and this is important: DMT is better than religion.

It provides us with instant access to all the fundamental questions about consciousness and the meaning of existence without making us so arrogant that we feel the need to find idiotically simplistic answers.

If you look at this thread its the believers and sympathizers looking into the big questions and the disbelievers insisting on invading the thread and turning it into an arrogant tardfest of rhethoric.

 

[Anon0631]

^ Oh? So you're saying that because I don't consider an invisible beardy dude to be an adequate explanation for the origin of the universe, consciousness and the root of humanity, I don't care about big questions?

I would say that your attitude is shallow, arrogant and indicative of a weak intellect.

 

[Asante]

Invisible beardy guy. Right, well I must say that 666th post of yours is in style.

 

[Anon0631]

Yup. Well only a small minority with a twisted belief system attach any particular significance to the number 666.

Have you ever stopped to think about why half the bluelight community has descended on this post in objection? Might it be that your belief in god is fucking ruining the planet we're trying to live on?

 

[Asante]

your belief in god is fucking ruining the planet we're trying to live on?

That doesn't make any sense. Are you out of your mind?

Thats logic of the type "most murderers are men, therefore all men are murderers."
You know? Insane logic.

 

[Vurtual]

The most fundamentalist people in this thread seem to be the anti-religious...

It's easy to argue against something you characterise so simplistically (beardy-guy) - i didn't read many views of god so shallow from the 'religious' people here (though i know they exist)

And as for science not causing wars and such; what about eugenics, or technocratic regimes in general (stalin, hitler, usa)?

Most of the bad atrributed to religion would be hard to separate from usual socio-economic forces at play using the contemporary backdrop of religion as a flag to wrap itself in (similar to how the west wraps itself in 'democracy and progress')

(this is speaking as a totally non-religious sciencey-type (on the whole) - but agnostic (as any scientist should be ultimately imv).

 

[Anon0631]

^ ba boom! Someone doesn't understand what the word "fundamentalist" means

 

[Vurtual]

my personal understanding of it is someone who is a bit too certain in the face of uncertainty, whether about a bible or an infinite universe

 

[kidklmx]

No. It is the belief which is inherently bad. The bible is littered with examples of "god" insisting that humans do disgusting things. Examples include infanticide, genocide, offering family members for gang rape, destruction of property, intentional dissemination of pathological illness, racism, theft, fraud.

The bible is the first source to claim the existence of a monotheistic god so you can't remove it from the equation but keep the deity it postulates.

Again, your source of the bible is a very late revision based on translations done by romans, who were in dire need of a new religion because their all-inclusive puddle was loosing traction, and the medieval church who were known to abuse their position to become the absolute power in Europe. Earlier texts however, dabble much more in mysticism and spirituality* and you're not supposed to follow the word of any pope. "Modern" interpretations remove the divine from the self, and made it a separate entity to be obeyed.

*Honestly, I'm not well read enough on the subject to make any valid claims on that, but the discrepancy between the various texts of the bible seem to suggest this is true. Maybe Asante can back me up?

I agree this part of religion is horrible, but do you honestly think things like PRISM wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Christianity? Let's face it, some people just seek control and will use any means necessary. This is not religion, it's the hierarchy in which we live that causes this. I'm not sure if it's the right example, but take that psychological test were a few perfectly normal people were inmates and a few perfectly normal people were unsupervised wards. After a few weeks time they were all torturing the inmates and they had to blow it off. My conclusion from that: once you feel that you have more value than others, then you'll treat those "below" you the same way you would treat an annoying mosquito.

It's not just religion which causes harm. It's all of the institutions that cause harm: Schools are farms for producing job-eating workers, scientific research is often hindered because a conflict of interest with the investors, policy is decided by which company had the best strip-clubs when they were hanging out with senators or congressmen. Why wouldn't religion, or institutionalized religion rather, be a tool to keep the fools where they are?

"infanticide, genocide, offering family members for gang rape, destruction of property, intentional dissemination of pathological illness, racism, theft, fraud." These things are not exclusive to religious folk either. It stems from a distorted image, finding it's base in our messed-up ways and has nothing to do with the theology or message of any religion. If you don't think, you'll do stupid things. Regardless of your belief-system. (Can you give me ONE example of any of the things you mentioned that couldn't have happened without the belief of a god?)

At any rate, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. How much christian mysticism diverts from a spiritual view of the world, and why it should be distinct, I don't really know. From what I understand they're just using different words. Would love to hear some constructive talk on that, but you people just had to come in and ruin the thread. You're looking for a scapegoat for the general fucked-upness of this world, but it's just not that easy.

Only human behavior, which is neither bad nor good (same as any other animal), is to blame. But what sets us apart from other animals, is that we can leave our tendencies behind and move on to something new. Sadly though, those in charge don't really want that.

 

[Anon0631]

my personal understanding of it is someone who is a bit too certain in the face of uncertainty, whether about a bible or an infinite universe

Dude... You have all the world's knowledge at your fingertips. Did it not occur to you to look it up?

Fundamentalism is the strict, literal interpretation of religious scripture. IE the belief that the universe is 5774 years old or that men posses one less rib than women because Adam gave one if his ribs to make Eve.

Conversely scientists and rational thinkers understand for instance that the Theory of General Relativity is only a useful way to explain the universe until disproved or superseded.

Darwin and Wallace's theory of evolution by natural selection does not require belief in its fundamental truth. Just evidence.

Again, your source of the bible is a very late revision based on translations done by romans, who were in dire need of a new religion because their all-inclusive puddle was loosing traction, and the medieval church who were known to abuse their position to become the absolute power in Europe.

Again that's simply untrue. Repeating it doesn't make it truer. See my previous statement about the Dead Sea Scrolls for evidence.

*Honestly, I'm not well read enough on the subject to make any valid claims on that

I am so I can.

You're just repeating claims made by an invalid belief system who's being chased into a theoretical corner by evidence-based thinking and modern rationalism. All they have left is barely coherent ramblings and inconsistencies which they try to use to retain whatever shred of validity they have left. Be very wary of believing them on face value.

 

[kidklmx]

Again that's simply untrue. Repeating it doesn't make it truer. See my previous statement about the Dead Sea Scrolls for evidence.

Is it, though? The guy who wrote that was the only academic theologist on board for translating the Dead Sea Scrolls and he got fired because that was his conclusion. The rest of the translators were just priests and monks, people from the vatican, etc. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't speak for the entirety of early christianity anyway, especially since it finds it's roots in Judaism which was already institutionalized at the time of writing.

Empiricism hasn't been able to explain reality in a very good fashion either. Or at least the Copenhagen interpretation (which is the only one that can be true, based on your reasoning) of quantum physics hasn't been very fulfilling, and is kind of fundamentalist in a way because it takes the data very literally. It only allows the observed universe to be real. But how do you distinct that which is observed and that which isn't? Is my viewpoint the only real one? How would a star's light be able to reach us, even when we're not observing the light until it's here? These things are unanswered.

At any rate, a scientific vision of the universe is all but complete, and interpretations of things as complex as QM, M-Theory, etc. are all philosophy at this point. This view of the world you have is no better than someone who finds their explanation of the universe through more spiritual or mystic means. Even science agrees with that our observed reality is a construction of our minds, rather than just sensual input, so why would that be any a worse tool in exploring what's real than observations based on (IMO) incomplete data?

P.s can a mod please split this discussion and the mindless bashing from the rest of the thread, and move it towards Philosophy & Spirituality or something?

 

[Vurtual]

Dude... You have all the world's knowledge at your fingertips. Did it not occur to you to look it up?

Fundamentalism is the strict, literal interpretation of religious scripture...

I hoped you might guess i know what is meant by fundamentalism generally - i was giving you my personal interpretation; that someone who holds to a rigid set of simplistic beliefs that they read in a book, excluding the possibility that they might be wrong, and condemning anyone who holds other views as stupid/evil, is fundamentalist. Plenty of amateur athiests are fundamentalist about their views, often without any real science knowledge or experience to back it up (just quotes from 'pop science' sources like dawkinis or hitchens). Similarly, plenty of 'christians' or other religious types are very much not fundamentalist (with some good examples in this very thread).

Athiests should have to engage with beliefs of all complexities, but so often want to use the 'beardy guy' level in their arguments (i.e. straw man). I used to call myself an athiest, but it seemed like too much knowledge to claim for myself, so i fudge it with agnostic instead . Plus, i just found it unpleasant to always be making religious people and myself feel bad by chucking my ideas at them as if i'm better than them (which i probably wasn't anyway, even with the bad bits of their religion). i've found it so much better personally since i try not to do that - i still talk about religion just as much, but focus on constructive topics/argument strategies (that's not to say i don't criticise).

.....

Sorry, i'll get back on topic now: as a non-christian i haven't really got too much basis for adding much, but here it is - for me i would hope to see an overlap between what i would call the 'nice' christianities, and the ones which might concievably get the positive aspects of psychedelics. The 'nicest' crhistianity to me is quakerism, as it doesn't weigh you down with rules from the bible (though there is probably traditional antagonism to drink/drugs).

Though maybe the types of christianity which are more actively mystical would have more chance of getting it: The eastern orthodox tradtions as spelled out excellently above are more about direct experience of the divine (whatever you think that is) - not too much of a stretch to the psychedelic state from there (though the old guard might not like how easy it is to achieve after they sat on their bums for so many years... (still here ismene? ).

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some traditions going all the way back to jesus that did use psychedelics - i'm thinking of the far-out gnostic types (secret rituals and that, who knows what they got up to); it's often argued that gnostic traditions are truer to jesus' bunch but were surpressed in favour of non-gnostic (i don't know if that's true).

In a more modern context, i find the liberation theology tradition to be another 'nice' form of christianity, focussing on social justice before anything else - though i don't know if this diverse group has particular views on drugs/drinking.

Teillhard De Chardin's writings (and their science/sci-fi spin-offs) while logically flaky, manage to fit christianity into a much more comlpex cosmology, more suited to psychedelic state (and the dissociative one) than any 'beardy guy' level stuff; i thought i'd invented the whole omega point idea (while tripping) until i came across this stuff.

---To broaden it out to other 'abrahamic' religions, the Sufi tradtion of islam, being another practical/mystical sort of thing also seems to naturally fit with the psychedelic state; and in fact there is a traditon of psychs within it (if only cannabis)
(just my 102-penneth's worth)

 

[Transform]

I do not agree with organised religion but I am really disappointed with the way this thread was derailed. I understand the frustrations of those arguing as they have in this thread, but I promise you will win neither hearts nor minds with the approach you have chosen.

 

[kidklmx]

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some traditions going all the way back to jesus that did use psychedelics - i'm thinking of the far-out gnostic types (secret rituals and that, who knows what they got up to); it's often argued that gnostic traditions are truer to jesus' bunch but were surpressed in favour of non-gnostic (i don't know if that's true).

I have a bit of a theory with Amanitas Muscaria being highly intwined with mysticism over here in Holland, which should date back to at least the dark ages. Not too much fact, but there's some folklore about a gnome and a mushroom that is red and has white dots all over it. In fact, every kids story about gnomes right now has them living inside such mushrooms. I also read something about you being heavily prosecuted when you just picked them (which is still illegal), and in Dutch mycology books it is still listed as poisonous to the point of being deadly.

Doesn't say too much, but it makes you think and is not that much out of reach.

 

[Foreigner]

OP, you chose a poor topic name for this thread and I have renamed it. If you don't want to attract trolling then don't bait trolls into visiting your thread. It's also not a way for forum staff to properly hear your grievances.

rickolsnice and webbykevin have been temp banned from Bluelight for the infractions they have received. Even a baiting thread title does not give them permission to break the rules on trolling threads and abusing other posters.

Every poster who follows the rules in P&S and the BLUA has equal voice is expressing their philosophical or spiritual worldviews.

This thread will now resume under its original premise, "Psychedelics & Divinity". OP, if you have a different name in mind please let me know and I'll change it.

 

[pmoseman]

Anyway, I took Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior because after years of earnest living, full of "right" and "wrong," I experienced the validation, as one Organelle in the Body of Existence, of the mutualistic operation of an (im)perfect God (Sum) and its imperfect, but utterly natural and forgivable, Constituent Parts.

Can you please explain what you talking about here?

 

[black metal]

Can you please explain what you talking about here?

It took my whole life to get to a point where I knew enough about myself vs. the universe that, holding them in tension, I was able to uncover a general truth. That truth is what I call God. The representation of my human relationship with that truth is Jesus.

God allows suffering and disaster, yet provides light and order. We deserve neither good nor bad things, yet we receive both. God is always moving through us, "figuring himself out" through us, even though at the end of the day that highest universal truth is so complete that it may as well be nothing at all. I like to say that God has a million faces, but only one head. I am one of those faces, you are one of those faces. Esoteric things that I can't even describe get a face, too.

 

[pmoseman]

Holding the universe in tension. Must be a metaphor.