Home | Community | Message Board


SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Spirituality & Mysticism

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Seeds Store Buy CBD, Cannabis Seeds, Compare CBD   Amazon Ayahuasca

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePoptart
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/05/08
Posts: 1,821
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca.
    #11258695 - 10/16/09 11:28 AM (8 years, 9 days ago)

I've been thinking about this lately.

Alot of people feel like they are burning up karma or sin or whatever you would like to call it when they partake.

Shamans refer to it as a purging of demons and negativity and that it can sometimes be a very painful process. It is a cleansing process that makes way for the transfiguration (kundalini) to move through you.

I think it's very possible that the "bitter cup" christ drank from was in fact ayahuasca.


Edited by Poptart (10/16/09 11:39 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDyingjezuz
Stranger


Registered: 03/08/09
Posts: 168
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Poptart]
    #11258704 - 10/16/09 11:30 AM (8 years, 9 days ago)

No i know for a fact it wasn't.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePoptart
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/05/08
Posts: 1,821
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Dyingjezuz]
    #11258744 - 10/16/09 11:39 AM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Why?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Poptart]
    #11258773 - 10/16/09 11:44 AM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Poptart said:
Why?



Ayahuasca grows in South America.  Jesus lived in what is now the Israel-Palestine area.  Ayahuasca does not grow there.  In fact, Ayahuasca was totally unheard of to anyone outside of South America until about the last century.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that I get really annoyed when psychedelic users try to project their habits onto historical religious figures, as if to say that psychedelics were the only way they could have to come to their insights.  My guess is that fasting for 40 days alone in the desert would have been quite sufficient to give Jesus some profound religious experiences.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePoptart
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/05/08
Posts: 1,821
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul]
    #11258793 - 10/16/09 11:48 AM (8 years, 9 days ago)

I wasn't aware that ayahuasca was actually grown. Maybe the materials to extract it but not ayahuasca in and of itself. Sorry I just sounded like a smart ass and I didn't mean it that way.

Your probably right though but who knows.

Surely Christ must have went through an ayahuasca like experience some time in his life.


Edited by Poptart (10/16/09 11:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Poptart]
    #11258804 - 10/16/09 11:50 AM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Poptart said:
I wasn't aware that ayahuasca was actually grown. Maybe the materials to extract it but not ayahuasca in and of itself.



*Sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banisteriopsis_caapi

Quote:

Surely Christ must have went through an ayahuasca like experience some time in his life.



What could possibly lead you to believe that, other than wishful thinking?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePoptart
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/05/08
Posts: 1,821
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul]
    #11258890 - 10/16/09 12:13 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Poptart said:
I wasn't aware that ayahuasca was actually grown. Maybe the materials to extract it but not ayahuasca in and of itself.



*Sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banisteriopsis_caapi

Sorry I just sounded like a smart ass and I didn't mean it that way.



Quote:

Surely Christ must have went through an ayahuasca like experience some time in his life.



What could possibly lead you to believe that, other than wishful thinking?




Your probably right though but who knows.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleOlympus Mons
esprit de l'univers

Registered: 09/15/09
Posts: 5,776
Loc: ∞
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Poptart]
    #11258909 - 10/16/09 12:17 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

not you :lol:


--------------------
I close my eyes and seize it
I clench my fists and beat it
I light my torch and burn it
I am the beast I worship....


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineHeffy
BrauMeister
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/30/04
Posts: 3,262
Loc: International Traveller
Last seen: 8 months, 2 days
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Olympus Mons]
    #11259264 - 10/16/09 01:14 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

There is however quite a bit of evidence to show that the "fire baptism" performed by Jesus, involved covering his followers with a potent cannabis containing oil.


--------------------
I am the king of Rome, and above grammar! - Emperor Sigismund


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Heffy]
    #11259326 - 10/16/09 01:23 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Heffy said:
There is however quite a bit of evidence to show that the "fire baptism" performed by Jesus, involved covering his followers with a potent cannabis containing oil.



What evidence would that be?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleOlympus Mons
esprit de l'univers

Registered: 09/15/09
Posts: 5,776
Loc: ∞
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul]
    #11259488 - 10/16/09 01:52 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

there's quite a bit of it, cant you see it?


--------------------
I close my eyes and seize it
I clench my fists and beat it
I light my torch and burn it
I am the beast I worship....


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Olympus Mons]
    #11259717 - 10/16/09 02:34 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Olympus Mons said:
there's quite a bit of it, cant you see it?



You mean the fact that drug users want to remake Jesus in their image?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblec0sm0nauttM
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/19/08
Posts: 10,297
Loc: NY
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul]
    #11260141 - 10/16/09 03:55 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Poptart said:
Why?



Ayahuasca grows in South America.  Jesus lived in what is now the Israel-Palestine area.  Ayahuasca does not grow there.  In fact, Ayahuasca was totally unheard of to anyone outside of South America until about the last century.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that I get really annoyed when psychedelic users try to project their habits onto historical religious figures, as if to say that psychedelics were the only way they could have to come to their insights.  My guess is that fasting for 40 days alone in the desert would have been quite sufficient to give Jesus some profound religious experiences.




Ayahuasca doesn't grow anywhere. MAOI's and DMT containing plants are found in every ecosystem on the planet.

Yes, Ayahuasca has resurfaced in the past few decades for our contemporary Western Cuture, but what does that have to do with what people knew 2000 years ago?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: c0sm0nautt]
    #11260373 - 10/16/09 04:35 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

c0sm0nautt said:
Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Poptart said:
Why?



Ayahuasca grows in South America.  Jesus lived in what is now the Israel-Palestine area.  Ayahuasca does not grow there.  In fact, Ayahuasca was totally unheard of to anyone outside of South America until about the last century.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that I get really annoyed when psychedelic users try to project their habits onto historical religious figures, as if to say that psychedelics were the only way they could have to come to their insights.  My guess is that fasting for 40 days alone in the desert would have been quite sufficient to give Jesus some profound religious experiences.




Ayahuasca doesn't grow anywhere. MAOI's and DMT containing plants are found in every ecosystem on the planet.

Yes, Ayahuasca has resurfaced in the past few decades for our contemporary Western Cuture, but what does that have to do with what people knew 2000 years ago?



I was referring to the Ayahuasca vine.  And if you can find me any evidence whatsoever of the use of such a concoction in Mediterranean culture prior to the 20th century, I'd love to see it.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleOlympus Mons
esprit de l'univers

Registered: 09/15/09
Posts: 5,776
Loc: ∞
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul]
    #11260454 - 10/16/09 04:48 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Olympus Mons said:
there's quite a bit of it, cant you see it?



You mean the fact that drug users want to remake Jesus in their image?



precisely


--------------------
I close my eyes and seize it
I clench my fists and beat it
I light my torch and burn it
I am the beast I worship....


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul]
    #11262599 - 10/16/09 11:05 PM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Poptart said:
I wasn't aware that ayahuasca was actually grown. Maybe the materials to extract it but not ayahuasca in and of itself.



*Sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banisteriopsis_caapi

Quote:

Surely Christ must have went through an ayahuasca like experience some time in his life.



What could possibly lead you to believe that, other than wishful thinking?




Sure, you're probably right, but let's not give weight to mysticism either. There is indeed an ontological disjunct between our time and the past, so that we cannot apparently know for sure what any of these mystified substances are. But certain ontological knowledge is not necessary to understand the basic situation or question as disclosed. We do not need to know what these mystified substances specifically are, when it is significant enough for our purposes to understand what a substance is upon the basic grounds of being.

It is not necessarily wishful thinking, but ordinary circumspection to "locate" the mystified substances of religious traditions in their bare root of generic substance. As to which particular substance is the forbidden fruit, the manna, or the bitter drink etc; there we may always have a mystery. The whole issue here, is that this mystery has become convenient for some people, or certain traditional ideologies (which is inconvenient for others). So there is my intention.

But as I was saying, we can circumspect the issue from what we basically know of a generic substance.

Take your form of skepticism here; this is only skepticism because the ideology raises our concern first to "a substance", to imply the substance". All I have done here is divided the question "what is the bitter drink?", into its constitutive parts. This concern is pre-ontological, which is not to be confused with the positive expression of that as mysticism.

Mysticism is this "question", as posited. Such a mystery may ordinarilty considered as pre-ontological, (as a genuine question), but it also has access to another route, by which the question is not genuinely asked to be answered. When we think of how this can even conceivably be answered, such as the OP's post, we are met here with a skepticism based on mysticism. This might first apply as considerations of locale, or historical circumstances, but these are just the more convenient objections. We all know that the question really has nothing to do with this kind of conceivability, even though the rhetoric may be played out this way if it is so convenient.

Take for instance, a different myth, "the forbidden fruit: - neither party could speculate as to history or locale, yet from past arguments I know that Silversoul objects upon certain grounds before these particulars even arise. What is really objectionable actually precedes ontology, to what is generically understood as A substance.

There are many such resources that preserve the disjuncture between "a" substance and "the" substance as the basic ground of being (as our question.) Established in an ostensible ground of being, we are positively guided through ideal representations that our relationship to these mystified substances is either conveniently an unanswerable mystery, or when that fails, substantiated as a fetish ...As if either examples were ontologically plausible. (emphasis upon grammatical substantiation)

For instance, to our considerable mystery of this forbidden fruit, we are traditionally inspired by representations that sever our understanding of substance from its effects. While this severing is often raised as a question (what is the particular substance), it might also be taken as a positive intention, which is what I would suggest. This severing is inconceivable as a disclosure in itself, because our sole understanding of substance is based upon effect. That's how we understand particular substances; in their effects. But while we can't be satisfied by this as a disclosure, it is still quite possible that we will be "caught up" in a kind of ontological entanglement of it.

By positing the separation of substance and effect as a fetish (so that we have an ostensible effect), magical yet mundane substances such as apples, figs or grapes have come to represent the forbidden fruit/fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Yet each of these substances cannot begin to explain (cause) why they should ever have been forbidden, or how they could inspire even the illusion of profound knowledge.

Someone will frankly assure me now that "spirituality" of each of these myths of substance is found within. Yet again, their ethereal disposition becomes a burden of mine, as I here consider what they conveniently articulate along with that spirit. A spiritual ideal...if it were only that! By this assertion of spirit, I no longer have access to interpret the substance that is aligned with it. There is no arguing with such an assertion.

So granting this spirituality, we should then at least consider the convenience of substance as a metaphor, if not in itself: That I am too literal or base in my considerations is a rather convenient line when this "base" is duly considered to be the apex of Judeo-Christian ideology as the forbidden fruit, or followed later by the transubstantiation as the first miracle of JHC. That is to say, some of these metaphors are quite literal to what is "metaphorically" accomplished. Transubstantiation, and the ritual "communion" for instance, both describe a substantial concern just as much as a spiritual one: Even if the ideal is spirit, you wouldn't say its a spirit/matter thing, where spirit only (positively) "matters". I mean, you can, but that syntax isn't anything but circular and ridiculous.

Still, I cannot make anyone consider "a" substance to be significant. But I can concretely determine that the criteria for that generic substance certainly precedes these articulations of "particular" substances, as offhand and insignificant as they may be.

The only conceivable definition of a generic substance is an effective one. That's all we need to know about these myths, even if the subsequent experience is subjective. There is where most people lose track. They mistake the subjective experience for the question of what the particular substance is. They think the substance is subjective, in its nondisclosure. Thus, with a strong ideology, this ontological entanglement allows someone to maintain a "mystical skepticism", without offering any conceivable alternative other than the implied apple, pear, or grape (which are not really conceivable).

The particular substance doesn't matter, so long as we understand the essence as it is disclosed to us - an effective substance that is interpreted (there's your subject!) as profound. That interpretation is even better actually, for on what other grounds would it be "forbidden" or mystified other than as explicitly interpreted?

So here we finally have encountered the disjunction; our question, in its basic form. In certain religious ideologies, the wonder and existential insecurity of Mind/body, spirit/substance is projected into the relative substance itself - either making substance known as something "magic" at the same time that it is real; or specifically unknown, while posited generically as something real. Of course, its not only that, but this is applied to (mis)represent the real substances that might authentically raise/disclose these existential issues through interpretation of the experiences they actually cause.

Just as well, you could describe it the other way, to say that the fetishistic and empty rituals of certain religions are mistaken for what has REALLY been referred to, improperly or not, as "magic" mushrooms (or whatever else).  Again, we are now basically speaking of something that is "really interpreted" as profoundly sacred (or magic) to some, and to others, profane enough to be forbidden. That meets the ontological criteria of a forbidden fruit, and no wonder, is such a forbidden fruit today. But most importantly for this argument, the mushroom and other psychedelics are only considered as such, in due in consequence to their universally substantial effects as the generic criteria of all real substances. In other words, the psychedelic is real, and its "magic" is not befuddled with the ontological uncertainty of what it specifically is.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!


Edited by daytripper23 (10/17/09 03:19 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePoptart
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/05/08
Posts: 1,821
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: daytripper23]
    #11263422 - 10/17/09 02:23 AM (8 years, 9 days ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Poptart said:
I wasn't aware that ayahuasca was actually grown. Maybe the materials to extract it but not ayahuasca in and of itself.



*Sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banisteriopsis_caapi

Quote:

Surely Christ must have went through an ayahuasca like experience some time in his life.



What could possibly lead you to believe that, other than wishful thinking?




Sure, you're probably right, but let's not give weight to mysticism either. There is indeed an ontological disjunct between our time and the past, so that we cannot apparently know for sure what any of these mystified substances are. But certain ontological knowledge is not necessary to understand the basic situation or question as disclosed. We do not need to know what these mystified substances specifically are, when it is significant enough for our purposes to understand what a substance is upon the basic grounds of being.

It is not necessarily wishful thinking, but ordinary circumspection to "locate" the mystified substances of religious traditions their bare root of generic substance. As to which particular substance is the forbidden fruit, the manna, or the bitter drink etc; there we may always have a mystery. That, I would say, has become rather convenient for some, and rather inconvenient for others.

We can circumspect the issue from what we basically know of a generic substance.

Take Silversoul's form of skepticism here; this is only "skepticism" because the ideology he is defending raises our concern first to "a substance", to imply the substance". All I have done here is divided the question "what is the bitter drink?", into its constitutive parts. This concern is pre-ontological, which is not to be confused with the positive expression of that as mysticism.

Mysticism is this "question" as posited. Such a mystery may be ordinarily considered as pre-ontological, (as a genuine question), but it also has access to another route, by which the question is not genuinely asked to be answered. When we think of how this can even conceivably be answered, such as the OP, we are met with "mystical skepticism". This might first apply as considerations of locale, or historical circumstances, but these are just the more convenient objections. We all know that the question really has nothing to do with this kind of conceivability, even though the rhetoric may be played out this way if it is so convenient.

Take for instance, a different myth, "the forbidden fruit: - neither of us could speculate as to history or locale, yet from past arguments I know that Silversoul objects upon certain grounds before these particulars. What is really objectionable actually precedes ontology, to what is generically understood as A substance.

There are many such resources that preserve the disjuncture between "a" substance and "the" substance as the basic ground of being (as our question) The chief example in positive "substantial" form is the fetish.

Established in an ostensible ground of being, we are positively "told" through ideal representation that our relationship to these mystified substances is either conveniently an unanswerable mystery, or when that fails, substantiated as a fetish ...As if either examples were ontologically plausible. (emphasis upon grammatical substantiation)

For instance, to our considerable mystery of this forbidden fruit, we are traditionally inspired by representations that sever our understanding of substance from its effects. While this severing is often raised as a question (what is the particular substance), it might also be taken as a positive intention, which is what I would suggest. This severing is inconceivable as a disclosure in itself, because our sole understanding of substance is based upon effect. But while we can't be satisfied by this as a disclosure, it is still quite possible that we will be caught up in a kind of ontological entanglement.

By positing the separation of substance and effect as a fetish (so that we have an ostensible effect), magical yet mundane substances such as apples, figs or grapes have come to represent the forbidden fruit/fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Yet each of these substances cannot begin to explain (cause) why they should ever have been forbidden, or how they could inspire even the illusion of profound knowledge.

Someone will frankly assure me now that "spirituality" of each of these myths of substance is found within. Yet again, their ethereal disposition becomes a burden of mine, as I here consider what they conveniently articulate along with that spirit. A spiritual ideal...if it were only that! To this assertion of spirit the only direct argument would be to attack the spiritual ideal that their substance has aligned with. Rhetorically, I understand that spirit is untouchable, and further, this is not what I am here to do.

But what if we were not considering each substance in its specific significance, but as a recurrent theme in theology? Why is substance so often mystified? That I am too literal or base in my consideration of substance (as a substance of matter) is a rather convenient line when it is duly considered to be the apex of Judeo-Christian ideology as the forbidden fruit. And what about transubstantiation as the fundamental miracle of JHC?

Its reasonable to have a spiritual ideal, but if its grounded in substance, you can't just say its a mind/matter thing, where mind only (positively) "matters". I mean, you can, but that syntax isn't anything but ridiculous.

In other words, I realize I cannot make anybody consider "a" substance as significant, but I can concretely determine that the criteria for generic substance certainly precedes these articulations of "particular" substances as significant/insignificant as they may be in every conceivable way.

That is to say, the only conceivable definition of a generic substance is an effective one. And that's all we need to know about these myths, even if the subsequent experience is subjective. Here is where most people lose track. They mistake the subjective experience for the question of what the particular substance is. They think the substance is subjective, in its nondisclosure. Thus, with a strong ideology, this ontological entanglement allows someone to maintain a "mystical skepticism", without offering any conceivable alternative, besides the implied apple, pear, or grape.

The particular substance doesn't matter though, so long as we understand the essence as it is disclosed to us - an effective substance that is interpreted (there's your subject!) as profound. That interpretation is even better actually, for on what other grounds would it be "forbidden" or mystified other than explicitly interpreted?

So here we finally have encountered the disjunction; our question, in its basic form. In certain religious ideologies, the wonder and existential insecurity of Mind/body, spirit/substance is projected into the relative substance itself - either making substance known as something "magic" at the same time that it is real; or specifically unknown, while posited generically as something real. Of course, its not only that, but this is this is applied to (mis)represent the real substances that might authentically raise/disclose these existential issues through interpretation of the experiences they immanently cause.

Just as well, you could say the fetishistic rituals of certain religions are mistaken for what has REALLY been referred to, improperly or not, as "magic" mushrooms (or whatever else).  In this case, we are now basically speaking of something that is "really interpreted" as profoundly sacred (or magic) to some, and to others, profane enough to be forbidden. That meets the ontological criteria, of a forbidden fruit, but most importantly for this argument, the mushroom or other psychedelics are only considered as such, in due in consequence to its universally substantial effects as the generic criteria of all real substances. In other words, the psychedelic is real, and its "magic" is not befuddled with the ontological uncertainty of what it specifically is.




:eek: :handth: :bow:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Poptart]
    #11263639 - 10/17/09 03:32 AM (8 years, 8 days ago)

Thanks, I spent all day on that.

Made some minor but crucial edits just now, just to clarify.


--------------------
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
  The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
  The frumious Bandersnatch!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblewmeanie
 User Gallery


Registered: 10/01/06
Posts: 28,591
Loc: Flag
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: Silversoul]
    #11263973 - 10/17/09 06:14 AM (8 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

c0sm0nautt said:
Quote:

Silversoul said:
Quote:

Poptart said:
Why?



Ayahuasca grows in South America.  Jesus lived in what is now the Israel-Palestine area.  Ayahuasca does not grow there.  In fact, Ayahuasca was totally unheard of to anyone outside of South America until about the last century.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that I get really annoyed when psychedelic users try to project their habits onto historical religious figures, as if to say that psychedelics were the only way they could have to come to their insights.  My guess is that fasting for 40 days alone in the desert would have been quite sufficient to give Jesus some profound religious experiences.




Ayahuasca doesn't grow anywhere. MAOI's and DMT containing plants are found in every ecosystem on the planet.

Yes, Ayahuasca has resurfaced in the past few decades for our contemporary Western Cuture, but what does that have to do with what people knew 2000 years ago?



I was referring to the Ayahuasca vine.  And if you can find me any evidence whatsoever of the use of such a concoction in Mediterranean culture prior to the 20th century, I'd love to see it.



What type of tree was the ark of the covenant made of? :wink:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: The "Bitter Cup" that christ drank from quite possibly could have been ayahuasca. [Re: daytripper23]
    #11264576 - 10/17/09 11:24 AM (8 years, 8 days ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
Thanks, I spent all day on that.

Made some minor but crucial edits just now, just to clarify.



If you wanted to clarify, you could try making it ADHD-compatible by shortening it to a couple paragraphs.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Seeds Store Buy CBD, Cannabis Seeds, Compare CBD   Amazon Ayahuasca

General Interest >> Spirituality & Mysticism

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Jesus Christ is the False Messiah
( 1 2 all )
WScott 4,440 39 05/12/06 07:39 AM
by DoctorJ
* Christ Consciousness
( 1 2 3 all )
Telepylus 6,980 51 09/25/16 04:59 PM
by Douglas Howard
* The Jesus Christ delusion...
( 1 2 3 all )
deCypher 5,369 53 03/22/09 01:27 PM
by Mycomyth
* Christianity before Christ - Jesus, Horus, Krishna, and the sun MAIA 8,456 19 12/19/05 02:32 PM
by MAIA
* The Christ Plane
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 4,538 36 02/20/06 10:38 AM
by eve69
* Help with Christ and Friends
( 1 2 all )
sleepy 3,398 34 09/25/06 07:36 PM
by Schwammel
* If you had the chance to meet a Messiah (christ, Mohammad, etc)
( 1 2 3 all )
Randolph_Carter 4,834 56 06/27/08 10:14 PM
by NoClue
* Christ Consciousness *DELETED* Gomp 1,849 14 01/26/06 02:41 PM
by MAIA

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Shroomism, Rose, Kickle, c0sm0nautt, yogabunny, DividedQuantum
1,971 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
RVF Garden Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.057 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 21 queries.