|
5
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Benny Shanon, of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, has a theory of hallucinating Israelites recounting the story of Moses that is featured in the Time and Mind journal. He hypothesizes that a common hallucinogen in the Sinai desert, which is regarded by the Jewish as having both medicinal and curative powers, would have stimulated the mind to have a "religious experience" such as that describing the receipt of the 10 Commandments. The plants are similar in property to the Ayahuasca which is known to produce similar deeply moving and religious experiences to the people of South America.
If the hypothesis were true, Judeo-Christians should consider themselves lucky that the bible does not feature a passage describing how a giant purple Pop-Tart delivered ten Divine Psychedelic Twinkies to the mushroom-popping desert wanderers.
Add a Comment (8)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
Here we go again. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 10 March 2008
Yawn..yet another attack on Judeo-Christian belief. Like the much-ballyhooed burial site of Jesus, Joseph and Mary Magdelene; this too will prove inconsequential.
My favorite part of the article:
Maybe he wrote his article while partaking?
RE: Here we go again. by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 10 March 2008
Well, I found it interesting that the assessment came from within the Hebrew community. It fits the model like how comedians can make jokes about their own.
But it does raise an interesting question - how often could that have happened? It's not inconceivable that our ancestors were frequent users of narcotics and hallucinogens. How miserable would the experience have been of roaming around in the desert - people often turn to such remedies to make it all go away. And for it's time, that wasn't a "bad" thing, it was normal. However, it very well could have had significant impacts on real vs. imagined.
I too chuckled at the author's reference to having partaken in the brew - very often.
RE: Here we go again. by scottb :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
Why is this an "attack on Judeo-Christian belief?"
He stated a plausible explanation for observable data. We have this old book that claims to be non-fiction, yet is full of out-of-the-ordinary events. Why is it an "attack" to say, "you know, they could have been hallucinations"? Especially when he can identify a specific compound, known to produce similar responses, known to be available in the region in question, and known to have been perceived as having medicinal properties.
You might consider the fact that not even every Christian insists on the literal truth of scriptures - possibly even most do not. The fact that not everyone conforms to narrow-minded, conservative Christian delusion isn't an attack, any more than western society "attacks" Islam when we don't conform to the Qur'an.
RE: Here we go again. by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
You might consider the fact that not even every Christian insists on the literal truth of scriptures - possibly even most do not.
Then they, by definition, cannot call themselves Christian. To 'follow Christ' means to obey God..how do we know how to Obey God? By picking up His Holy Book, reading it, and following it. Now..I know we're going to go down that old tired path on 'What About this Mosaic Law, or that Mosaic Law. Christ fulfilled those Laws during His Life, and He passed that fulfillment to us (which is why we are saved through Him) on the Cross.
any more than western society "attacks" Islam when we don't conform to the Qur'an.
To even draw a picture of Muhammed is considered an attack on Islam by some in that belief.
Why is this an "attack on Judeo-Christian belief?"
Simple..because it attempts to relegate Christianity to a mere 'hallucination'. Of course, you're going to say what makes Christianity the correct path? Because God saved me and granted me eternal life through His Grace and Love. I can't do anything to earn that love; it is freely given. Just as any parent (deep down) loves their children regardless of what they do, God loves me...(and everyone) He might not like things I sometimes do, but that never changes His unceasing Love. I cannot do anything to earn my way into eternal life; it is mine simply by trusting Him and believing in His Son, Jesus Christ. That, my friend, is how I know I am on the correct path.
RE: Here we go again. by scottb :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
Then they, by definition, cannot call themselves Christian.
Then, by your (narrow-minded, conservative) definition, they cannot call themselves Christian. By their definition, you cannot.
The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes that scripture must be "interpreted", by a skilled, trained, professional. They've adopted the stance that the bible is never at odds with scientific fact - when the literal reading of the bible (talking snakes, and such) differs from scientific fact, it's the interpretation of the bible that's got to change.
Guess what - you don't get to decide who's a Christian and who's not. Neither does your pastor. Your whole "they're not real Christians" stance is just arrogance. You're positive that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right.
The entire last paragraph of your post is nothing more than your interpretation of whatever message is to be found in Christian scripture. To assert that it's the only possible correct one is arrogance far and away beyond anything we atheists have managed.
Even the notion that one doesn't "earn" salvation by works, only by faith, is mere interpretation. And a disgustingly self-serving one, at that. It says you don't actually have to be worthy of anything, you can be the most despicable blackguard in your village, but if you believe hard enough, you get rewarded.
Well, guess what? Not everybody thinks that's something a good deity would accept. Some think that one does have to earn a place in heaven through deeds.
I still think you're all selling bullshit, but pretending yours is the only true bullshit is arrogance beyond belief.
To even draw a picture of Muhammed is considered an attack on Islam by some in that belief.
That's kind of my point. Do you think it's sane at all to call that an "attack on Islam"? You're doing essentially the same thing when you call Shanon's conjecture an attack.
RE: Here we go again. by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: on 14 March 2008
Simple..because it attempts to relegate Christianity to a mere 'hallucination'.
I don't think that's what he's doing at all. Shanon is not reducing Christianity to "mere" hallucination, he's validating hallucination as a possible path to symbolic / mythic / religious experience--in the way that Joseph Campbell or William James might have talked about. In the proper context and with supervision, hallucinogens may be a worthwhile means to understanding.
Of course, the implication is that Christianity is not the only possible interpretation of such experiences--but that there's truth to be found in many spiritual traditions, depending on an individual's particular frame of reference.
RE: Here we go again. by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 16 March 2008
i am a former christian, i spent 18 years of my life "high" on jesus, and high on a pedestal similar to yours. jesus didnt drink wine right? it was grape juice? forget that, lets talk about drugs. keep in mind, the bible has been translated from the "originals" thousands of times. and, of course, no one has even seen the originals, or even copies of the originals. our earliest texts are still copies of copies of copies, etc. im sure any mention of a drug has been kindly removed or "mistranslated."
if "bob" made the news tomorrow because he went to the top of his local mountain and received a "message" from god. you, me, pretty much everyone would agree he was on something right? or crazy? but not moses, he was perfectly sane and sober? sure.... because surely god, who "knows all, is all, was all," can be a bit more creative than a flaming bush? i would hope so.
wake up! just wake up! i woke up. i am awake now, free from this nonsense. youre conditioned. youre numb to the absolute ignorance and atrocities the bible possesses. you know what i did? i applied logic to the bible, and to god, and guess what? it crumbles when you do that. go look up dionysus and see the similarities between he and jesus, except his "miracles" were 800 years before jesus. look up the epic of gilgamesh. note the undeniable similarities between he and noah, and the two floods. i can set a bush on fire. that is lame. religion is the worse drug out there. it makes one ten times more delusional because the affects never wear off. just look at the suicide bombers. 42 virgins sounds like an acid trip to me...so does a flaming-gay bush.
one more think to my novel ^^^^ by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 16 March 2008
nobel prize winner, Francis Crick, was a frequent user of LSD and was on the drug when he discovered the double-helix structure of DNA. type in "francis click lsd" and you will see. you going to knock him too?
what does that mean?
stupid people find god in bushes when theyre high. smart, educated people find "gods code" through a microscope. lots of people have done lots of things on drugs. the bible is definitely not excluded.
signed,
chris b