Is the Bible a magic book?

[Politesse]

Ethneogen is synonomous with psychedelic, psychoactive, and halucinagenic. An acadenic euphemism IMO.

For shit's sake, all of those terms mean different things. I give up.... maybe read a book some time?

 

[DBT]

Isn't the notion of 'supernatural' the very opposite of natural? Where natural processes are determined by the laws of physics.... principles and attributes that do not apply to the supernatural, where any damn thing can happen.

 

[Elixir]

maybe read a book some time?

You mean other than The Holy Thesaurus?
Why bother? They’re all the same.

 

[DBT]

Some folks read the bible, others the Qur'an or the Gita....

 

[Politesse]

maybe read a book some time?

You mean other than The Holy Thesaurus?
Why bother? They’re all the same.

The good old Clinical Handbook of Psychoactive Drugs might be more useful in this case.

 

[DBT]

Does it explain the difference between natural and supernatural experience?

 

[Learner]

the well known serpent in the garden of Eden, who was uniquely the cleverest of ALL the creatures on Earth

This sounds so much like it comes directly from a fairy tale for pre-school infants. I heard it in my head in the voice of the woman who presented "Listen With Mother" on BBC radio in the 1970s.

There is some irony to the fairytales you mention. The ideas are more likely lifted from the bible. Fairytales for older people,shall we say, like Star Wars have a similar Light v Dark, Good v Evil story - a very common theme in movies.

Can any mentally healthy adult actually believe that this is somehow a factual statement about a real entity, rather than a phrase lifted directly from a poorly crafted story for very young children?

Interesting perspective. It's more likely the other way round as I said. Poorly crafted stories for young children, as you put it, would instead have ideas taken from the bible.

 

[bilby]

The ideas are more likely lifted from the bible.

Only if by "more likely" you mean "not likely at all". The bible contains almost no original material; It's a collection of earlier stories, from other traditions than Judaism (and later, Christianity).

Do you have a single shred of evidence to suggest that the bible is the source for these fairy tale tropes?

Even if you were right, the ideas are incredibly naïve and obviously stupid, which is why they remind us of tales for infants - adults are supposed to be able to think more deeply than this.

It is that infantile shallowness that is my point here. It's not relevant whether the bible is the source of, or merely another example of, that characteristic.

Educationally and psychologically healthy adults don't say (or give credence to) inane shit like: "...uniquely the cleverest of ALL the creatures on Earth".

 

[Learner]

The ideas are more likely lifted from the bible.

Only if by "more likely" you mean "not likely at all". The bible contains almost no original material; It's a collection of earlier stories, from other traditions than Judaism (and later, Christianity).

With that logic. The Israelites have had their own unique traditions long before Judah and Judaism. Neither Moses nor several generations after him were Jewish! Jews later inherited the traditions of the ancient Hebrews as did the Christians (who were Jews) later.

Do you have a single shred of evidence to suggest that the bible is the source for these fairy tale tropes?

Strange question to ask, when you didn't have a 'shred of evidence' when you said it was otherwise.

Even if you were right, the ideas are incredibly naïve and obviously stupid, which is why they remind us of tales for infants - adults are supposed to be able to think more deeply than this.

Be kind, love your neighbours, love your enemies, feed the poor and heal the sick is where I would emphasise on, in my story book.

It is that infantile shallowness that is my point here. It's not relevant whether the bible is the source of, or merely another example of, that characteristic. Educationally and psychologically healthy adults don't say (or give credence to) inane shit like: "...uniquely the cleverest of ALL the creatures on Earth".

That's the perspective now... I agree. Today instead... it's the talking 'Great Apes' who are the cleverest of all creatures.

 

[DBT]

A culture and religion, Israelites, Hebrews, Jews, Judaism, with name changes evolving over time and the progression of events.

 

[bilby]

With that logic. The Israelites have had their own unique traditions long before Judah and Judaism. Neither Moses nor several generations after him were Jewish! Jews later inherited the traditions of the ancient Hebrews as did the Christians (who were Jews) later.

Yes.

I am seeing zero issue here; In fact I would go so far as to say that that's bleeding bloody obvious.

 

[bilby]

That's the perspective now... I agree. Today instead... it's the talking 'Great Apes' who are the cleverest of all creatures.

We DO NOT agree. The fact is (and my entire point is) that the very description "cleverest of all creatures" is a naïve and cartoonish over-simplification, that has been reduced to the point of meaninglessness here. It might possibly have some value as a starting point for teaching pre-schoolers about differences in the way different animals think, but that's it.

It belongs in a discussion amongst adults in exactly the same way that "A is for Apple" belongs in a discussion amongst linguists.

Literally everyone whose brain hadn't been rotted out by religious claptrap can see it for the pointless and vacuous phraseology that it is. By using it unironically, you identify yourself clearly and unequivocally as a person who hasn't thought about what he is saying AT ALL, and instead is just parrotting nonsense he heard in kindergarten and never thought to challenge.

 

[Politesse]

Does it explain the difference between natural and supernatural experience?

No, why would it? Quibbling over ontology is completely irrelevant to the clinical context.

 

[DBT]

Does it explain the difference between natural and supernatural experience?

No, why would it? Quibbling over ontology is completely irrelevant to the clinical context.

Yet as matter of spiritual experience through the use of drugs came up, the nature of this spiritual experience, if supernatural, should be explained? As it stands, we only have words and terms without references.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does it explain the difference between natural and supernatural experience?

No, why would it? Quibbling over ontology is completely irrelevant to the clinical context.

Yet as matter of spiritual experience through the use of drugs came up, the nature of this spiritual experience, if supernatural, should be explained? As it stands, we only have words and terms without references.

Only because you seek to loudly overlook where it has been investigated as to where the border between "inside" and "outside" is believed to be, and how this inflects the experience.

 

[Politesse]

Yet as matter of spiritual experience through the use of drugs came up, the nature of this spiritual experience, if supernatural, should be explained?

A pharmacologist or sociologist or whomever has no means to investigate whether or not a given experience is "really" spiritual or supernatural or what have you. But the religious ecstatic state is a concrete phenomenon that can be directly observed. So that, not personal philosophy, is the diagnostic criterion for calling something an entheogen. You don't want a situation where, say, atheist social workers and Christian social workers are handing out different diagnoses to the same clients, based on their personal beliefs rather than an objective criterion. We use consistent terminology because it works best to use consistent terminology.

Not, as Steve has alleged, to be "politically correct". Frankly, in an age where men like Trump and Putin are calling the global shots, the very idea that practicing the social sciences or medical sciences according to scientific standards rather than emotionally charged language is exactly the opposite of "politically correct", as Steve himself is kind of demonstrating. In our current political regime, someone who agreed with Steve (that barely considered folk categorizations are all you need and medical science is politically correct bunk pushed by the radical left) would be more likely to do well in Washington or the governor's office than someone who is educated on, say, ethnopharmacology. Indeed, if an ethnopharmacalogist had an audience with a senator, they would almost certainly feel obliged by practical need to dumb down their language to the point of being barely comprehensible as their original argument, or they won't get a hearing at all. In short, if you're talking to Gavin Newsom, you're going to have to say "drug", not "entheogen", or he's going to get confused. So what is politically correct?

As it stands, we only have words and terms without references.

Incorrect. A word like "entheogen" or "psychoactive" connects to observeable phenomena and thus ALWAYS has a meaningful referent. What you describe is the situation of vague idea like "a drug", which may or may not have a real world referent, or which might be applied to very different referents by different individuals. Consider the responses you would get if you asked a room of five hundred people "Did you take drugs this week?" Almost all of them will have consumed a drug (like a "drink" or "medicine" or "allergy pill" etc) of some kind that week, but almost none of them woud respond affirmatively, because social conventions have drawn a taboo around the topic, and they have correspondingly become accustomed to a justification like "beer or Sudafed aren't 'real drugs'" to preserve their ability to save face, to the point they have forgotten those even are justifications and not just naturally existing categories.

 

[steve_bank]

Ethneogen is synonomous with psychedelic, psychoactive, and halucinagenic. An acadenic euphemism IMO.

For shit's sake, all of those terms mean different things. I give up.... maybe read a book some time?

Academics use of terms are not always consistent. Science wise beyond interpretation, organic or synthetiorigin f a substance it is about chemically induced states.

Are you arguing drugs could not have been involved in Hebrew mysticism, visions, and prophesy? Alchohol?

Or are you just hmadwving over the quetion?

A good read on the 'spiritual experience' is John Lilly's Center Of The Cyclone. He was a scientist doing research on dolphons. It was the times. He combined LSD with salt wtaer islotion tanks. You float in altwater in a wet suit with a mask with water at body temperature. You loose a sense of the boudary of your bdy and you can go into a haluenagenic state, altred tatess. Feeling disembidue. He added LSD. He described vivid halucnatins and having converstaons with histrical fgures.

Mystics and prophets look for ways toinduce visons. Fasting and islotion.

Cermonies of pain. Sensory deprivation. Put somebody in dark soumd proff room long enrogh and they will hear voices and see things. Studies show inthe of abscence of stimulus the bain manufctures a reality.

You know the words but pehaps do not uderstad the experence amd psychology?

Get yourself a sensory dprvarion tank ad your journey of self discovery begins.....

 

[Politesse]

Are you arguing drugs could not have been involved in Hebrew mysticism, visions, and prophesy? Alchohol?

Of course not, that seems entirely likely. It's your spreading of misinformation about my subject area that irks me, not the main point of your post, which I did not contest.

I notice that when you notice someone is saying something that is factually wrong according to your experience, you don't hesitate to correct them. At length. Why wouldn't I do the same?

 

[Elixir]

Why wouldn't I do the same?

Because your subject area is so arcane that correcting people makes you sound like an unredeemable pedant?
S’ok Poli - some of us still appreciate you!

 

[Politesse]

Why wouldn't I do the same?

Because your subject area is so arcane that correcting people makes you sound like an unredeemable pedant?
S’ok Poli - some of us still appreciate you!

I am an unredeemable pedant, and proud of it. Y'all think you don't need us, til you do. Take it away, Randy!