were biblical figures hopped up on drugs?

Rasta said:

Not necissarily. However, why do you think historians try to understand ancient texts through the lense of conventional knowledge?

Click to expand...

Please, do not mistake me. I do think it important that texts and evidence constantly are looked at. But as I have numerous times stated in the past, I really find it ridiculous that we take our knowledge to be so vast and fool-proof, that we first dis-claim everything and then only accept what we can force through the funnel of conventional knowledge.

Time and time again scientists find themselves stumped against some "inexplicable" phenomena even today. And yet - they have to assume they know it all and explain away Moses, Jesus and Budha. Unable to do that - it must be drug-induced-halucinations. I find it limited thinking, that's all. But you know that already.

Please, do not mistake me. I do think it important that texts and evidence constantly are looked at. But as I have numerous times stated in the past, I really find it ridiculous that we take our knowledge to be so vast and fool-proof, that we first dis-claim everything and then only accept what we can force through the funnel of conventional knowledge.

Click to expand...

This is how our understanding of truth works. Truth is. Truth doesn't care if you really believe or if you really, really believe. I'm so glad that human sacrifice was dis-claimed without any evidence. Also, contemporary knolwedge is not fool proof, but it is vast compared to other ages.

Time and time again scientists find themselves stumped against some "inexplicable" phenomena even today. And yet - they have to assume they know it all and explain away Moses, Jesus and Budha. Unable to do that - it must be drug-induced-halucinations. I find it limited thinking, that's all. But you know that already.

Click to expand...

Yes, scientists do get stumped. I think intellectual honesty is a commendable trait, often sneered at unjustly by thoes who do not operate by the same standards. These standards of veracity are what allowed us to create vaccines (among a myriad of other advancements). Does anyone ..... about vaccines? Why not? Oh no, we didn't rule out demons as a possible source for disease. Why then are doctors so certain that vaccines are the venue we should approach for cure rather than beads and rituals?

Rasta said:

This is how our understanding of truth works. Truth is. Truth doesn't care if you really believe or if you really, really believe. I'm so glad that human sacrifice was dis-claimed without any evidence. Also, contemporary knolwedge is not fool proof, but it is vast compared to other ages.

Yes, scientists do get stumped. I think intellectual honesty is a commendable trait, often sneered at unjustly by thoes who do not operate by the same standards. These standards of veracity are what allowed us to create vaccines (among a myriad of other advancements). Does anyone ..... about vaccines? Why not? Oh no, we didn't rule out demons as a possible source for disease. Why then are doctors so certain that vaccines are the venue we should approach for cure rather than beads and rituals?

Click to expand...

I fail to see how any of what you stated here is connected to what we are talking about. One of us misunderstands the other, I am afraid.

Where did I say "dod not search for better? Go ahead and have human sacrifice? You must be confusing me with somebody.

We were discussing the "interpretation" of how/why ancient people heard/saw "supernatural" phenomena or "magically" healed. This was being attributed to "drug-induced-halucinations". No?

Where did I say "dod not search for better? Go ahead and have human sacrifice? You must be confusing me with somebody.

Click to expand...

But as I have numerous times stated in the past, I really find it ridiculous that we take our knowledge to be so vast and fool-proof, that we first dis-claim everything and then only accept what we can force through the funnel of conventional knowledge.

Click to expand...

So did you mean to apply this to only certain things that you like? Or are you speaking about a standard of methodology that we objectively apply to all scenarios regardless of our emotional attachment to certain ideas?

I tend to think of truth in a logical manner, trying to be objective as possible. For example, if we make a proposition: "All apples are green." Then if we find a single example of an apple that is not green, then we know that said proposition is invalid. So what I am talking about is consistently applying ideas in an objective fashion. So what you say would need to apply to every single metaphysical, supernatural, or religious belief to be objectively true. If you only apply it to ideas you favor, or ideas you believe have merit, then you are being biased, and not objective.

We were discussing the "interpretation" of how/why ancient people heard/saw "supernatural" phenomena or "magically" healed. This was being attributed to "drug-induced-halucinations". No?

Click to expand...

Right, then following up on that line of thought with your assertion that it is foolish to disprove a concept by looking at ancient ideas through the lense of conventional knowledge.

Rasta said:

So did you mean to apply this to only certain things that you like? Or are you speaking about a standard of methodology that we objectively apply to all scenarios regardless of our emotional attachment to certain ideas?

I tend to think of truth in a logical manner, trying to be objective as possible. For example, if we make a proposition: "All apples are green." Then if we find a single example of an apple that is not green, then we know that said proposition is invalid. So what I am talking about is consistently applying ideas in an objective fashion. So what you say would need to apply to every single metaphysical, supernatural, or religious belief to be objectively true. If you only apply it to ideas you favor, or ideas you believe have merit, then you are being biased, and not objective.

Right, then following up on that line of thought with your assertion that it is foolish to disprove a concept by looking at ancient ideas through the lense of conventional knowledge.

Click to expand...

I'll try to explain myself better then.

I have, forever, said (and I stand behind it) that lack of evidence for the existence is not evidence for non-existence. We have crossed words over it numerous times.

Here we have an example. Not only the have we here a dis-proving by "science" of the existense of God (and other seemingly "supernatural" phenomena) without any knowlege thereof, but an attempt of taking long-passed events, not clearly described by people who were unable to really explain what they have seen - and "explain it away" by "drug-induced hallucinations". Why? Because they have no explanation.

So, instead of just saying "we don't bloody know how it was done - but some day we may"; they go and invent a theory, bending everything along the way to fit into this theory, to satisfy their own justification for the impossibility of what they do not believe in.

I'm sorry, but it seems - to me - silly, to put it very mildly.

I don't know if I believe that Moses spoke to God. I don't know that I don't. But I sure as hell would not try to explain it away in a ludicrous claim of him being high while herding his sheep, just because I don't know what he saw. Some people sometimes see and hear things that others don't. That does not automatically make them crazy/sick/doped/liars.

As in every single time previously we talked about, you asked me what I would say. I would say - I honestly don't know. And you know what? It's fine!

Someday it may become apparent to evey schoolkid how they did what they did, what they saw and heard and why. Not today. Fine.

I'll try to explain myself better then.

I have, forever, said (and I stand behind it) that lack of evidence for the existence is not evidence for non-existence. We have crossed words over it numerous times.

Click to expand...

Not necissarily, I agree.

Here we have an example. Not only the have we here a dis-proving by "science" of the existense of God (and other seemingly "supernatural" phenomena) without any knowlege thereof, but an attempt of taking long-passed events, not clearly described by people who were unable to really explain what they have seen - and "explain it away" by "drug-induced hallucinations". Why? Because they have no explanation.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of explanations. We don't have a concrete rational explanation, so people hypothesize for a naturalistic explanation. Why? Because the laws of nature don't change even though our fallible perception does.

So, instead of just saying "we don't bloody know how it was done - but some day we may"; they go and invent a theory, bending everything along the way to fit into this theory, to satisfy their own justification for the impossibility of what they do not believe in.

Click to expand...

How can you praise modern revisionist theological interpretations, while at the same time disparaging modern revisionist scientific explanations? To me, that seems like inconsistency.

I don't know if I believe that Moses spoke to God. I don't know that I don't. But I sure as hell would not try to explain it away in a ludicrous claim of him being high while herding his sheep, just because I don't know what he saw. Some people sometimes see and hear things that others don't. That does not automatically make them crazy/sick/doped/liars.

Click to expand...

Ok, you must have not read my posts in this thread, because I never said that every single religious experience was concretely the direct result of drugs. In fact, I merely said it is a plausible scenario (notice the lack of absolute knowledge inferred) for some. Most notibly the ones where an isolated individual have wild visions.

As in every single time previously we talked about, you asked me what I would say. I would say - I honestly don't know. And you know what? It's fine!

Click to expand...

Yes it is fine.

Someday it may become apparent to evey schoolkid how they did what they did, what they saw and heard and why. Not today. Fine.

Click to expand...

Unless we invent a time machine and a mind reading device, I doubt we will ever be able to concretely know. All we can do is hypothesize based on experience, plausibility, and knowledge.

Rasta said:

There are plenty of explanations. We don't have a concrete rational explanation, so people hypothesize for a naturalistic explanation. Why? Because the laws of nature don't change even though our fallible perception does.

Click to expand...

I don't think we, with all due respect, know all the laws of nature. And yes, I agree, that they do not change.

Rasta said:

How can you praise modern revisionist theological interpretations, while at the same time disparaging modern revisionist scientific explanations? To me, that seems like inconsistency.

Click to expand...

How and/or where did I praise "modern revisionist theological interpretations"?

I also don't "disparage modern revisionist scientific explanations", unless they stumble into fields where they have no land to stand on and pretend to be dancing, instead of falling.

Rasta said:

Ok, you must have not read my posts in this thread, because I never said that every single religious experience was concretely the direct result of drugs. In fact, I merely said it is a plausible scenario (notice the lack of absolute knowledge inferred) for some. Most notibly the ones where an isolated individual have wild visions.

Click to expand...

Mmm, in fact it was you who responded to me, I was answering vid. So no, I was not talking about YOUR particular posts. And yes, I did read them, and noted your fairness at the time to myself.

Rasta said:

Unless we invent a time machine and a mind reading device, I doubt we will ever be able to concretely know. All we can do is hypothesize based on experience, plausibility, and knowledge.

Click to expand...

Right. As long as we don't pass it as fact...

I do however, think that it's better to admit lack of knowledge than BEND things that do not fit into your theory, just to prove yourself right, which was rather what I was replying about to vid.

I don't think we, with all due respect, know all the laws of nature. And yes, I agree, that they do not change.

Click to expand...

Ok. Cool.

How and/or where did I praise "modern revisionist theological interpretations"?

Click to expand...

By saying that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the worst way to read it. Obviously, in favor of alternative interpretations that were written from a modern perspective.

I also don't "disparage modern revisionist scientific explanations", unless they stumble into fields where they have no land to stand on and pretend to be dancing, instead of falling.

Click to expand...

Can you qualify this statement please? I think I get what you are saying, but I don't want to misinterpret what you mean.

Mmm, in fact it was you who responded to me, I was answering vid. So no, I was not talking about YOUR particular posts. And yes, I did read them, and noted your fairness at the time to myself.

Click to expand...

Ah, you are right. Thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were talking about my posts.

Right. As long as we don't pass it as fact...

I do however, think that it's better to admit lack of knowledge than BEND things that do not fit into your theory, just to prove yourself right, which was rather what I was replying about to vid.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Rasta said:

By saying that a literal interpretation of the Bible is the worst way to read it. Obviously, in favor of alternative interpretations that were written from a modern perspective.

Click to expand...

Oh, no, no, please! Not modern interpretations at all. Why would I look to interpretations by people who can barely think philosopically enough to allow words to have ANOTHER meaning, who have spent a dozen years learning languages from today's perspective?

The scriptures were not written from today's perspective; they were not written in a language that can be interpreted correctly today after some studying and comparing it to a dozen other languages; they were not written literally in the first place, because that is not how things were written then; it takes a philosopical upbringing and a lifetime of STUDY to understand all the subtleties of the MANY VARIOUS LAYERS of meaning.

There was (still is) a long chain of Jewish wise men (Khakhamim) over the past 25 hundred years at least - philosopers, Rabbis, teachers; who dedicated their lives to the writing, study and interpretation of the Jewish scriptures. Theirs is the councel I would seek.

Rasta said:

Can you qualify this statement please? I think I get what you are saying, but I don't want to misinterpret what you mean.

Click to expand...

I was referring specifically to a link vid posted about how all the visions were actually marijuana-induced, and basing this on the presence of cannabis in the annointment oil. This person then puts forth a theory how the word "Cannabis" is actually derived from two words defining the plant "kneh bosem" (loosely translated as fragrant cane). The word "bosem" means fragrance, "bsamim" in plural, a word that is also found in Tanakh.

This person then claims that because the word "bosem" ends in "m", and words in plural often end in "m" - it was dropped by the Jews to merge the two words in to "cannabis".

Now this is taking the theory and bending the reality to fit it, pulling it there by the ears.

It may very well be that cannabis was indeed the plant. It is also possible that in some other way it was derived from "kaneh" and something else. But not like this. This is pure nonsense.

Also, this person states the healing of epilepsy, and I have never heard of cannabis applied topically to cure epilepsy.

So I was commenting on how some researchers bend the reality to fit a theory, just because they want to justify it. And it happens, not just in this particular case.

I hope that is cleared now.

I also said that drug-induced trances are well-known in every culture, and that perhaps the cause and effect here is the other way around.

Oh, no, no, please! Not modern interpretations at all. Why would I look to interpretations by people who can barely think philosopically enough to allow words to have ANOTHER meaning, who have spent a dozen years learning languages from today's perspective?

The scriptures were not written from today's perspective; they were not written in a language that can be interpreted correctly today after some studying and comparing it to a dozen other languages; they were not written literally in the first place, because that is not how things were written then; it takes a philosopical upbringing and a lifetime of STUDY to understand all the subtleties of the MANY VARIOUS LAYERS of meaning.

There was (still is) a long chain of Jewish wise men (Khakhamim) over the past 25 hundred years at least - philosopers, Rabbis, teachers; who dedicated their lives to the writing, study and interpretation of the Jewish scriptures. Theirs is the councel I would seek.

Click to expand...

I rest my case.

I was referring specifically to a link vid posted about how all the visions were actually marijuana-induced, and basing this on the presence of cannabis in the annointment oil. This person then puts forth a theory how the word "Cannabis" is actually derived from two words defining the plant "kneh bosem" (loosely translated as fragrant cane). The word "bosem" means fragrance, "bsamim" in plural, a word that is also found in Tanakh.

This person then claims that because the word "bosem" ends in "m", and words in plural often end in "m" - it was dropped by the Jews to merge the two words in to "cannabis".

Now this is taking the theory and bending the reality to fit it, pulling it there by the ears.

It may very well be that cannabis was indeed the plant. It is also possible that in some other way it was derived from "kaneh" and something else. But not like this. This is pure nonsense.

Also, this person states the healing of epilepsy, and I have never heard of cannabis applied topically to cure epilepsy.

So I was commenting on how some researchers bend the reality to fit a theory, just because they want to justify it. And it happens, not just in this particular case.

I hope that is cleared now.

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining.

I also said that drug-induced trances are well-known in every culture, and that perhaps the cause and effect here is the other way around.

Click to expand...

So it was not drugs that caused religious experience, it was religious experience that caused drugs? I probably messed that up. What do you mean?

Rasta said:

I rest my case.

Click to expand...

Which case would that be?

Rasta said:

So it was not drugs that caused religious experience, it was religious experience that caused drugs? I probably messed that up. What do you mean?

Click to expand...

I mean that in all cultures people were known to receive answers on questions in trances. Some people are known to get into trances when their minds are under the effects of certain music, smoke or drug. Other ways are available, too. Some people may be more susceptible than others.

So it just may be that in order to see or hear something that may exist a certain frame of mind is necessary, and it is facilitated by a trance.

That is as opposed to drug-induced halucinations.

Maybe not. Just another possibility.

Which case would that be?

Click to expand...

That you praise theological revisionist interpretations.

I mean that in all cultures people were known to receive answers on questions in trances. Some people are known to get into trances when their minds are under the effects of certain music, smoke or drug. Other ways are available, too. Some people may be more susceptible than others.

So it just may be that in order to see or hear something that may exist a certain frame of mind is necessary, and it is facilitated by a trance.

That is as opposed to drug-induced halucinations.

Maybe not. Just another possibility.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying.

Rasta said:

That you praise theological revisionist interpretations.

Click to expand...

Well, if you think that interpretation made by, for example, Hilel, Rashi or Marmonides are revisionist - then yes, by all means.

If you mean that I praise interpretation of Jewish scripture by those who understood it and the Jewish culture - then by all means. What else? Science?

If you mean that I trust itepretation of SCRIPTURE by people who were BELIEVERS (you would call them theologians) - then by all means. And it would be most ridiculous to do otherwise. Like interpreting Alice in Wonderland by one who is expert in the Kuran. I may also remind you that I have, in those same posts you referred to, stated not only that the bible was not to be read un-literally, but that the Jewish scriptures are largely NOT religious books.

vera said:

Well, if you think that interpretation made by, for example, Hilel, Rashi or Marmonides are revisionist - then yes, by all means.

If you mean that I praise interpretation of Jewish scripture by those who understood it and the Jewish culture - then by all means. What else? Science?

If you mean that I trust itepretation of SCRIPTURE by people who were BELIEVERS (you would call them theologians) - then by all means. And it would be most ridiculous to do otherwise. Like interpreting Alice in Wonderland by one who is expert in the Kuran. I may also remind you that I have, in those same posts you referred to, stated not only that the bible was not to be read un-literally, but that the Jewish scriptures are largely NOT religious books.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't mean to infer that there is anything wrong with doing so. I think it's fine.

Rasta said:

Yeah, I didn't mean to infer that there is anything wrong with doing so. I think it's fine.

Click to expand...

No, it was the "revisionist" label that set me off. Sorry.

vera said:

No, it was the "revisionist" label that set me off. Sorry.

Click to expand...

No worries. I call naturalistic interpretations revisions too.

At the risk of sounding ridiculous. I totally dropped like fifteen tabs of acid last night and I am gonna go with they are on drugs. I was talking to aliens and the floor was growing flowers out of it and I was pretty sure there was a big ... spider next to me but I didn't care much cause I was then drinking bourbon.

My friends today were like dude you were having a conversation with yourself. What the hell do they know? They were all doing the same thing.

Like I was literately for the lack of a better term tripping balls and I think they might have been tripping a little to much and took it seriously, lol.

Question. Do people need to be tripping balls to write a novel? To imagine things, and come up with a great story? No, and lets not forget that the Bible has had thousands of years to be tweaked and worked on by multiple people, a few of which were probably a little crazy, and maybe they were doing drugs, but I'd say no for the most part.

Rudy said:

At the risk of sounding ridiculous. I totally dropped like fifteen tabs of acid last night and I am gonna go with they are on drugs. I was talking to aliens and the floor was growing flowers out of it and I was pretty sure there was a big ... spider next to me but I didn't care much cause I was then drinking bourbon.

My friends today were like dude you were having a conversation with yourself. What the hell do they know? They were all doing the same thing.

Like I was literately for the lack of a better term tripping balls and I think they might have been tripping a little to much and took it seriously, lol.

Click to expand...

I must say that that was a very unhealthy, bad idea. Acid isn't good for you, and the Bible (and God) says to take good care of your body, inside and out.

Rudy said:

At the risk of sounding ridiculous. I totally dropped like fifteen tabs of acid last night and I am gonna go with they are on drugs. I was talking to aliens and the floor was growing flowers out of it and I was pretty sure there was a big ... spider next to me but I didn't care much cause I was then drinking bourbon.

My friends today were like dude you were having a conversation with yourself. What the hell do they know? They were all doing the same thing.

Like I was literately for the lack of a better term tripping balls and I think they might have been tripping a little to much and took it seriously, lol.

Click to expand...

Without addressing the folly of your act, I will say again - yes there is undoubtedly such things as durg-induced hallucinations.

So unless you are the next Moses, the fact you had some does not prove anything about anybody else's visions.