In Good Company: Jesus Christ
It’s been a while since I have written a In Good Company episode, so I thought I’d come back with a bang. For those of you who have never read my In Good Company series it is focusing on famous current and historical figures who have used marijuana or support its legalization.
I don’t think Jesus Christ really needs any introduction, most people are aware of who Jesus Christ was supposed to have been. Christians will probably be appalled and insulted to think that Jesus Christ might have been a stoner, but there is considerable evidence that this may have been the case.
Lets start with the name Christ, Christ means “the anointed one”, in Exodus there is a recipe for a anointing oil that would have been commonly known it calls for 9lbs of kaneh-bosem and a variety of other spices extracted into approximately 11 pints of olive oil. Kaneh-bosem is believed to be the flowering buds of cannabis plants. This anointment was said to allow priests to see and commune with Yahweh the Jewish god. Residue of cannabis has been found in vessels in Judea and Egypt indicating medicinal and visionary uses. The baptismal by John the Baptist, as it was described in the bible, was most likely to wash of the oil after its purpose was complete. This oil was probably also used by Christ to heal various skin and eye maladies increasing his reputation as a miraculous healer.
Early Christian documents found in Egypt portray Jesus as a rebel sage who preached enlightenment through rituals involving “magic plants”. There is even some evidence that what modern Christians refer to as the host may not have been initially bread at all, but magic mushrooms.
It was also the practice at the time to fortify wines with herbs, including cannabis. It has been suggested that this may have been the sacramental wine used at the last super. Could the last supper have been a meal of magic mushrooms and Green Dragon wine?
Reference:
http://cannabis.net/articles/jesus-cannabis.html
Posts
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. http://www.urinetesting101.com Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the otherhand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butts, doing drugs,while I work. . .. . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check ? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has to change in this country -- and soon! Help support your no test no federal pay legislation to stop workplace drug testing
ReplyDeleteI suspect the post by "LiberalGirly" is nothing but spam, but as it is vaguely on topic I will allow it, and respond working under the assumption that it is not (ignoring all evidence to the contrary).
ReplyDeleteHow about banning Urine tests all together, if an employee is doing their job why is it the employer's business what the employee does outside of the workplace.
As for the nonsense of the state saving money by forcing welfare users to take urine tests before getting a check, this is only true if you assume most welfare users are on drugs, not a fair assumption by any stretch.