As long as the method of interpretation continues, the back and forth will continue. There is no end when this form is used. Susan Sontag deplored it and refuted it in her seminal essay Against Interpretation and Foucault put it to bed for good. We have all received an education based on doing it well, and it is the Dominating Discourse of our time,but it is fading away. It will not go quietly into that good night but will howl against the dying of the light. Sorry my Dylan Thomas quote is sloppy.

Jesus drank wine. Some people drink too much wine. Some people smoke a few cigarettes, others quite a few too many. Shall we say the same with pot. Excuse me, cannabis.

Some of the genealogy of cannabis goes back not too far. Hemp was made into rope and cloth. It was in competition with industries that made rope and cloth out of other raw materials. I think linen was a competitor, not sure. Smoking pot and feeling good was in competition with the liquor industry. The lobbyists got busy, as they usually do, to outlaw this competitor. I think the lumber industry was involved too, but I also forget how that fit in. Was hemp also made into paper? Anyway here we see lobbyists convincing the government to stop the growing of marijuana to curtail its very real competition. Big surprise!

Here in Missouri a huge percentage of farmers want to grow hemp as a cash crop. MO is a state with low education demographics, farmers that are in poverty, and marijuana grows all over the place without any cultivation or care at all. It's roots go down about 6 to 7 feet and bring up the minerals making the soil richer wherever it grows. (I bet the fertilizer industry is in on this too.) This requires deputized and police officers to scour the countryside pulling it up out of fields, ditches, etc during boiling hot summer months, and unreal heat. And of course they have to be paid in tax money to do it.

The absurdity of it is gallows humor. We important zillions of dollars of hemp for rope, cloth, sandals, etc instead of growing it domestically and exporting it.

There is no point in opposing government, because as you see, it is composed of such retarded idiots that .... never mind, you get it I am sure. At some point everyone has tried to explain something very simple to an adult or child who was incapable of understanding it.

Follow the money and that's why we have prohibition.

"Excellent. Then you'll have no trouble finding a quote in the Bible to justify my claim that Jesus never hit anyone."

Obviously I can. In Matthew 5:38-42 and 26:52 Jesus condemns violence, in Luke 12:49-53 and Matthew 10:34 he promotes it. The trick is to find a proper quote which supports one's position and to ignore the all others which may contradict it-exactly like in your example. If you a good runner, you may escape Jesus' scourge. However, the shit in your pants may slow you down and you may get the well deserved flogging. As you see, there is no problem to justify just about anything, even the Holy war known today as Jihad.

In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II declared that some wars could be deemed as not only a bellum iustum ("just war"), but could, in certain cases, rise to the level of a bellum sacrum(holy war)

Or consider this text which easily could be a verse from Qur'an:
In the 12th century, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote: "'The knight of Christ may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently; for he serves Christ when he strikes, and saves himself when he falls.... When he inflicts death, it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is his own gain." ( Bernard of Clairvaux, In Praise Of The New Knighthood, ca. 1135)

Doesn't it sound like a death's cult?

Unfortunately the author doesn't specify what is exactly a gain. Could it be maybe few virgins?

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

I think I could, if not in the Bible, then in the numerous interpretations of it.

Excellent. Then you'll have no trouble finding a quote in the Bible to justify my claim that Jesus never hit anyone. You have an unbiased mind and can always can find a quote in the Bible to justify just about anything.

Frankly, if I saw Jesus looking pissed and brandishing a scourge of small cords, I'd run like hell and/or shit my pants. Wouldn't you?

I think I could, if not in the Bible, then in the numerous interpretations of it.

Can you always find a quote in the Bible to justify just about anything?

"Do you think you have an unbiased mind?"-I think that I already answered this question-see below. You can think whatever you please. But to make you feel comfortable with your thinking I would say that you are right-I'm biased toward reality and truth.

Elsewhere you said

One always can find a quote in the Bible to justify just about anything.

That why the clergy can interpretate any scripture in any way they please, to adjust it to any political condition and to control the herd of believers. But to understand this you need an unbiased mind, free of religious brainwashing.

I don't think you have an unbiased mind. Do you think you have an unbiased mind?

"Do you have an unbiased mind, free of religious brainwashing?"

Why to ask a question which you already answered? It's clear that no other answer except your own will satisfy you.

Do you have an unbiased mind, free of religious brainwashing?

"Wasn't this in effect a military attack?"

No, it wasn't. It was only the refutation of your statement that Jesus never hit anybody. Or you maybe imply that the traders around the Temple were in fact a cattle? That would explain everything.

You must whip it.

Can you then give unbiased answer to a simple question.

Yes.

You said : "Jesus never hit anybody." What then did he use the scourge of small cords for?

A whip of cords is an implement of animal husbandry, not a weapon of war. It is a piece of braided rope, and it is something you use to move recalcitrant cattle, by swishing it at them or popping it at them, or, as a last resort, by whacking them with it.

Well, but he did knock over the tables, etc. Wasn't this in effect a military attack? Wasn't it morally the equivalent of sending 500,000 soldiers to Vietnam or dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima? Can't you see Jesus doing this when you read about what he did in the Temple?

"I don't think you have an unbiased mind."

Suppose you have it. Can you then give unbiased answer to a simple question. You said : "Jesus never hit anybody." What then did he use the scourge of small cords for?

Drunkenness is frowned upon in the New Testament. See, for example, Paul's Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons.

Even so, Christianity leaves a great deal more leeway for partying than does Objectivism.

The virtue of Rationality ... means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours.

A severe drug problem and a severe drinking problem.

Ha ha yes alcohol is a drug, as are cigarettes; I quit drinking 3 years ago but still smoke ciggies (alas) - was meaning cannibas, cocaine, heroin etc

It sounds like you have a severe drug problem. (See here.)

Do you believe narcotics are 'good for you'? I am all for ending prohibition but do not for a second believe narcotics may actually be a good thing to consume (and have never taken drugs in my life).

Alcohol is a drug, mmmkay?

Narcotics are a very good thing to consume.*

What is frustrating about the drugs debate are people who take the "smoking a joint is better than whiskey" line (or something similar); it means the debate shifts from whether something should be a crime or not (it shouldn't), to ridiculous arguments about the merits of narcotics.

I totally agree.

[*Conditions apply.]

Hmmmmm... there was a bit more to my post but appears to have been chopped off ha ha!

Okay, let me rephrase and try again...

Do you believe narcotics are 'good for you'? I am all for ending prohibition but do not for a second believe narcotics may actually be a good thing to consume (and have never taken drugs in my life).

What is frustrating about the drugs debate are people who take the "smoking a joint is better than whiskey" line (or something similar); it means the debate shifts from whether something should be a crime or not (it shouldn't), to ridiculous arguments about the merits of narcotics.

I never expected to be qualified by people whose single qualification is an unquestionable irrational faith in the supernatural.

I don't think you have an unbiased mind.

Evicted.

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” (NIV)

Richard just a quick question - do you think narcotics are 'good for you'?

It depends.

Richard just a quick question - do you think narcotics are 'good for you'?

"Jesus never hit anyone."

And what did he use the scourge of small cords for? If you reject this part of John's gospel, why you accept the rest of it? If you cherry-picking the scriptures, then you confirm my position that scriptures are chaotic supermarket and everybody just picks up whatever he likes and ignores the rest. Why, then, you consider such a position as a contradiction?

"I don't think you're qualified."-I never expected to be qualified by people whose single qualification is an unquestionable irrational faith in the supernatural.

Jesus often exercises verbal abuse and in this particular case he decided to go physical.

Jesus never hit anyone. You just said

the Bible ... was written for the people like you and me and the only qualification which is needed to understand it, is an unbiased mind.

I don't think you're qualified.

. "But only the gospel of John mentions that Jesus made a scourge of small cords."

What exactly the author wants to tell? Should we disregard John and accept all others? What to do then with the rest of the John's Gospel? And how this article pre-empts me? If anything, it supports my position-Jesus often exercises verbal abuse and in this particular case he decided to go physical. In other words he possesses all normal human emotions-anger, love, sadness, violence, frustration, compassion, fear, self-pity etc...That what makes him much more attractive human being than this pale fleshless unnatural  indiscrementaly loving creature which Christianity promotes. 

Thanks.

I was hoping you'd raise the subject of the cleansing of the Temple.

I thought of you when I wrote, "Jesus was not violent." Consider yourself pre-empted.

"Prohibition is VIOLENT, it's UNCHRISTIAN and it's WRONG!"

Didn't Jesus prohibited trade around the Temple? Didn't he use a fair amount of violence to do so?

Matthew 21:12 Mark 11:12-19; Luke 19:45-48.

Alexandre Bida, Illustrations of the Life of Christ

http://www.gci.org/files/image...