| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2007 02:42:26 PM · #651 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Philosophy is the study of knowledge based in reason it requires no faith. Theology requires faith, the belief in something that flies in the face of reason. To accept theology as truth, reason, the foundation of philosophy, must be set aside. |
This is not correct. The best definition I have seen of Theology is this: "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth"
Note "rational" and "systematic", both of which terms are definitive of modern approaches to theology.
R. |
Well, yes, one can study Theology and not have faith, but, that's not the way people here are taking it. The way it's being presented here is that Theology = faith. I would also speculate that most, if not all, theology students also have faith.
I can study Astrology even though it's complete B.S. It's presented as both rational and systematic, but that doesn't make it true.
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 14:49:57. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 02:54:13 PM · #652 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, applying scientific principles can certainly help bring fairness and rationality to some social issues, as in applying equal penalties for similar offenses, such as the recent revision in the wildly unequal sentencing laws regarding powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine, for which there was no medical or scientific rationale. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Don't really know much about that one, do you?
World of difference, and the degrees that crack is worse are night and day with its powdered originator.
It is absolutely worse, and both the purveyors and users of crack stoop to unbelievable levels not generally even remotely consideed in the others' world. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmmmmm. I totally disagree.
There's little or no chemical difference between the two drugs.
Other than the predominant race and economic status of the offenders involved there really is little difference between what a crack addict and a powder cocaine addict will stoop to. |
See, the main difference is in how the drug is used.
It's completely different the way that it's ingested, and the effect that it has.
Cocaine as a powder, is much slower than the instantaneous bang/rush of the inhaled smoke from the oil that the rock melts into once heated.
Cocaine, administered in a cut form, is neither as strong, nor as fast acting, and the physical damage, barring a heart attack from the crack rush, is much more damaging as it'll tear your sinuses out.
You cannot use cocaine in a powdered form with much purity......it's just too strong. If you don't cut it with something, it will burn right through the soft membranes in your face.
If you don't freak out, or have a heart attack, the side effects from crack, other than stealing everything in sight to support your habit, has virtually no side effects. If you're a careful and smart crackhead, you cook all your rock before you use it.
With cocaine, it just physically drains you.
And crack addicts will go down exponentially further and faster than coke freaks, and don't for one second think that crack hasn't passed the socio-economic/racial lines years ago.
It's the middle and upper class people that can afford it longer and have access to more money.......everybody pretty much ends up with the same end, but it has nothing to do with race or economic status any more and hasn't for some time.
ETA: This is probably best left to another rant, kinda off topic and a none too pleasant one, IMO......no winners from this sh*t!!!.....8>)
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 15:02:37.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:01:06 PM · #653 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Philosophy is the study of knowledge based in reason it requires no faith. Theology requires faith, the belief in something that flies in the face of reason. To accept theology as truth, reason, the foundation of philosophy, must be set aside. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is not correct. The best definition I have seen of Theology is this: "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth"
Note "rational" and "systematic", both of which terms are definitive of modern approaches to theology.
R. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Well, yes, one can study Theology and not have faith, but, that's not the way people here are taking it. The way it's being presented here is that Theology = faith. I would also speculate that most, if not all, theology students also have faith.
I can study Astrology even though it's complete B.S. It's presented as both rational and systematic, but that doesn't make it true. |
Whoa! You can't possibly state that Theology=faith!!!!
Well, you can, but that's dead wrong.
And that certainly wasn't what I meant when I started the thread......it has blossomed to include that faith, Creationism, and the studies of everything we've talked about, but theology is absolutely not faith.
It's a study of religions, beliefs, and hopefully, without too much in the way of foregone conclusions if you're going to get anything from it.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:03:29 PM · #654 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, applying scientific principles can certainly help bring fairness and rationality to some social issues, as in applying equal penalties for similar offenses, such as the recent revision in the wildly unequal sentencing laws regarding powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine, for which there was no medical or scientific rationale. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Don't really know much about that one, do you?
World of difference, and the degrees that crack is worse are night and day with its powdered originator.
It is absolutely worse, and both the purveyors and users of crack stoop to unbelievable levels not generally even remotely consideed in the others' world. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hmmmmmm. I totally disagree.
There's little or no chemical difference between the two drugs.
Other than the predominant race and economic status of the offenders involved there really is little difference between what a crack addict and a powder cocaine addict will stoop to. |
See, the main difference is in how the drug is used.
It's completely different the way that it's ingested, and the effect that it has.
Cocaine as a powder, is much slower than the instantaneous bang/rush of the inhaled smoke from the oil that the rock melts into once heated.
Cocaine, administered in a cut form, is neither as strong, nor as fast acting, and the physical damage, barring a heart attack from the crack rush, is much more damaging as it'll tear your sinuses out.
You cannot use cocaine in a powdered form with much purity......it's just too strong. If you don't cut it with something, it will burn right through the soft membranes in your face.
If you don't freak out, or have a heart attack, the side effects from crack, other than stealing everything in sight to support your habit, has virtually no side effects. If you're a careful and smart crackhead, you cook all your rock before you use it.
With cocaine, it just physically drains you.
And crack addicts will go down exponentially further and faster than coke freaks, and don't for one second think that crack hasn't passed the socio-economic/racial lines years ago.
It's the middle and upper class people that can afford it longer and have access to more money.......everybody pretty much ends up with the same end, but it has nothing to do with race or economic status any more and hasn't for some time. |
True, smoking will get the drug into your system much faster and give a bigger "rush". Lots of powder cocaine users smoke their coke too... Remember Richard Pryor and "freebasing"? Also, in powder form, cocaine is easier to cook down and inject, giving an even more intense rush and high.
You assume that a coke user will simply continue to snort and never progress beyond that to smoking or injecting and that's simply not true.
There's simply no reason for 10x the penalty for crack vs. cocaine. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:06:10 PM · #655 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Whoa! You can't possibly state that Theology=faith!!!!
Well, you can, but that's dead wrong.
And that certainly wasn't what I meant when I started the thread......it has blossomed to include that faith, Creationism, and the studies of everything we've talked about, but theology is absolutely not faith.
It's a study of religions, beliefs, and hopefully, without too much in the way of foregone conclusions if you're going to get anything from it. |
I never said it was, but it's been presented that way here. Theology has also been re-defined as Philosophy in this thread. Perhaps a list of definitions would have been in order at the beginning. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:09:32 PM · #656 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, applying scientific principles can certainly help bring fairness and rationality to some social issues, as in applying equal penalties for similar offenses, such as the recent revision in the wildly unequal sentencing laws regarding powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine, for which there was no medical or scientific rationale. |
Don't really know much about that one, do you?
|
I graduated from the Stanford-Foothill Primary Care Associate Program and was licensed by the State of California as a Physician Assistant in 1985, and I've worked at a substance abuse clinic since 1986.
The print shop where I also work has printed the Forensic Drug Abuse Provider -- a monthly summary of the latest scientific publications in the field of substance abuse -- for many years.
Due to its ability to induce ventricular fibrillation regardless of dose or route of administration, there is no safe amount of or way to use cocaine, other than possibly its administration as a local anesthetic in a licensed medical/operative setting.
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 15:11:09. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:10:33 PM · #657 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Perhaps a list of definitions would have been in order at the beginning. |
But that would make sense and take all the sport out of it!.....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:11:06 PM · #658 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Well, yes, one can study Theology and not have faith, but, that's not the way people here are taking it. |
That's neither here nor there; just because they are "taking it" a certain way does not make them right.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The way it's being presented here is that Theology = faith. |
Not by the OP, not by Doc, not by me, not by several others. Don't tar us all with the same brush.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I would also speculate that most, if not all, theology students also have faith. |
So you'd say that in order to study a topic objectively, one has to NOT "believe" in it?
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:14:08 PM · #659 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Theology has also been re-defined as Philosophy in this thread. Perhaps a list of definitions would have been in order at the beginning. |
I may have been the first to bring it up, when I said "theology/philosophy", but I didn't mean to imply they are the same thing. I was saying that science is a field in which objective proof can be established, and "theology & philosophy" are areas in which you cannot do this.
Science is fact-based, or it's not science. Theology and philosophy are not like that, but both are valid areas of human study.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:16:04 PM · #660 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There's simply no reason for 10x the penalty for crack vs. cocaine. |
There are reasons, just not ones based on scientific/medical reasoning. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:16:36 PM · #661 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
there is no safe amount of or way to use cocaine, other than possibly its administration as a local anesthetic in a licensed medical/operative setting. |
[begin: levity]
Tell that to Sherlock Holmes...
[/levity]
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:17:18 PM · #662 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The way it's being presented here is that Theology = faith. |
Not by the OP, not by Doc, not by me, not by several others. Don't tar us all with the same brush.
R. |
Regardless, the water has been significantly muddied, by equating theology with faith and/or re-defining it as "philosophy" at various points throughout this thread, when in fact, it is neither.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:18:38 PM · #663 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
True, smoking will get the drug into your system much faster and give a bigger "rush". Lots of powder cocaine users smoke their coke too... Remember Richard Pryor and "freebasing"? Also, in powder form, cocaine is easier to cook down and inject, giving an even more intense rush and high. |
Injecting it is fairly rare.....for whatever reason, that never really took off too much with the exception of heroin users that like speedballs.
As far as 'basing goes, it's the same thing, just with crack, you buy it already rocked......it's just not as clean, though a lot of crackheads recook.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You assume that a coke user will simply continue to snort and never progress beyond that to smoking or injecting and that's simply not true. |
It is for the most part. It's two different schools of thought and there's little crossover.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There's simply no reason for 10x the penalty for crack vs. cocaine. |
I vehemently disagree.
Crack is so much more addictive, it takes you down so much quicker, and the attrition rate of coke users doesn't even remotely approach the ratio of crack users who lose it all.
The rate of crack users who ruin their lives and/or die is damn near 100%. It's the most God-awful thing this human race has ever seen for what we can do to ourselves and others while in the grip of it.
ANYTHING that will get you off the streets and out of circulation before you hurt or kill yourself and/or others is not too stringent.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:20:43 PM · #664 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There's simply no reason for 10x the penalty for crack vs. cocaine. |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
There are reasons, just not ones based on scientific/medical reasoning. |
Just on empirical data, the end results of the offenders the whole way across the spectrum, I understand, and am in favor of it.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:21:30 PM · #665 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The way it's being presented here is that Theology = faith. |
Not by the OP, not by Doc, not by me, not by several others. Don't tar us all with the same brush.
R. |
Regardless, the water has been significantly muddied, by equating theology with faith and/or re-defining it as "philosophy" at various points throughout this thread, when in fact, it is neither. |
So which one do you want to talk about? Faith? Give me a definition then.
I was likely the one that brought up "philosophy". I did it to show that science isn't all encompassing when it comes to knowledge. I figured it people weren't even going to buy that then I might as well forget talking about theology or faith. All three, to me, are rational ways of thinking that do not involve the scientific method.
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 15:23:47. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:22:09 PM · #666 |
"A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution." - Thomas Jefferson, on the University of Virginia
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:24:41 PM · #667 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
there is no safe amount of or way to use cocaine, other than possibly its administration as a local anesthetic in a licensed medical/operative setting. |
[begin: levity]
Tell that to Sherlock Holmes...
[/levity]
R. |
Uh, that was "no 'safe' way ..."
Dr. Andrew Weill once suggested that a 2% chewing gum could closely mimic the native practice of chewing a few coca leaves, and would yield an immediate increase in worker productivity, though he later changed his mind about it, as did Asa Chandler. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:24:51 PM · #668 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
"A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution." - Thomas Jefferson, on the University of Virginia |
You'll have to give us context on that one. Does he think theology below the institution or does he think it doesn't belong there because of separation of church and state? |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:25:00 PM · #669 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The way it's being presented here is that Theology = faith. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Not by the OP, not by Doc, not by me, not by several others. Don't tar us all with the same brush. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Regardless, the water has been significantly muddied, by equating theology with faith and/or re-defining it as "philosophy" at various points throughout this thread, when in fact, it is neither. |
I'd have to say that I agree with Robert.....it hasn't really been offered up as such.......maybe some allusion to a lesser degree, but still in use by definition from what I've seen.
I don't have to have faith to study theology, in fact, it would be more objective if I didn't, yet on some levels, it helps me to understand how religion works since I have faith.
And religion doesn't mean faith to me either.....it's sort of government of faith, IMO......and all too often, when it shouldn't be!
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:28:34 PM · #670 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And religion doesn't mean faith to me either.....it's sort of government of faith, IMO......and all too often, when it shouldn't be! |
Very much so. I touched on this a long time ago; many participants in organized religion have little, or no, actual faith, and many who participate in NO organized religion have true Faith.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:28:48 PM · #671 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
"A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution." - Thomas Jefferson, on the University of Virginia |
You'll have to give us context on that one. Does he think theology below the institution or does he think it doesn't belong there because of separation of church and state? |
I'm pretty sure it was the latter reason -- he was promoting the establishment of a state-sponsored university. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:33:00 PM · #672 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I would also speculate that most, if not all, theology students also have faith. |
So you'd say that in order to study a topic objectively, one has to NOT "believe" in it?
R. |
No.
But I would say that blindly accepting, without question, everything presented in any course of study is a dangerously stupid proposition.
A healthy dose of skepticism is a valuable commodity in learning. Unfortunately, when speaking of religion, it's often viewed as a lack of faith. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:39:03 PM · #673 |
Forgive me, I thought his views on religion etc. were quite well known. Even though it was a lot harder in that time, from letters to his friends it seems fairly clear he was an atheist.
There is an excellent book about if you want to read around: Thomas Jefferson: Author of America |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:40:55 PM · #674 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
True, smoking will get the drug into your system much faster and give a bigger "rush". Lots of powder cocaine users smoke their coke too... Remember Richard Pryor and "freebasing"? Also, in powder form, cocaine is easier to cook down and inject, giving an even more intense rush and high. |
Injecting it is fairly rare.....for whatever reason, that never really took off too much with the exception of heroin users that like speedballs.
As far as 'basing goes, it's the same thing, just with crack, you buy it already rocked......it's just not as clean, though a lot of crackheads recook.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You assume that a coke user will simply continue to snort and never progress beyond that to smoking or injecting and that's simply not true. |
It is for the most part. It's two different schools of thought and there's little crossover.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There's simply no reason for 10x the penalty for crack vs. cocaine. |
I vehemently disagree.
Crack is so much more addictive, it takes you down so much quicker, and the attrition rate of coke users doesn't even remotely approach the ratio of crack users who lose it all.
The rate of crack users who ruin their lives and/or die is damn near 100%. It's the most God-awful thing this human race has ever seen for what we can do to ourselves and others while in the grip of it.
ANYTHING that will get you off the streets and out of circulation before you hurt or kill yourself and/or others is not too stringent. |
It's the same chemical. Offer a hit of crack to a coke user or vice versa. They won't refuse in either case and they'll get the same high.
First of all, you assume that harsh prison sentences have an effect on drug use and that's simply untrue. The "War on Drugs" has been a total failure. In any case, if someone has a problem with chemical addiction, locking them in prison for a decade or two is NOT treatment.
For that matter, why should drugs be illegal for adult usage at all?
Why should any person in a supposedly free society have the right to tell another person above the age of consent that they cannot use a certain drug to feel better, even if it is a self-destructive behavior?
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 15:45:23. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 03:44:43 PM · #675 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I graduated from the Stanford-Foothill Primary Care Associate Program and was licensed by the State of California as a Physician Assistant in 1985, and I've worked at a substance abuse clinic since 1986.
The print shop where I also work has printed the Forensic Drug Abuse Provider -- a monthly summary of the latest scientific publications in the field of substance abuse -- for many years.
Due to its ability to induce ventricular fibrillation regardless of dose or route of administration, there is no safe amount of or way to use cocaine, other than possibly its administration as a local anesthetic in a licensed medical/operative setting. |
Okay.....I stipulate that you've not only got the book, you've either written it, or had a hand in it.
But do you have any real hard-earned firsthand experience?
There's a world of difference, and once you've been on "that" side of the fence, nobody with all the education in the world can understand what it's really all about.
I didn't really want to go here necessarily, but I am something of an anomaly in that I didn't die......wanna talk about divine intervention now????.....8>)
Anyway, the horrors and the way that the drug when smoked works is entirely different then when snorted, and really, virtually nobody shoots the stuff.
If you've seen a lot of that, you're unusual, 'cause it's just not that popular.
Studies really don't tell you much because short of creating a crackhead, and observing the degeneration, how the heck would you research it?
Plus, you kind of have to have that downhill slide for the self-perpetuation and escalation of the unreasonable way that it takes over your life.
Without the mental degeneration, and the hopelessness that creeps in, you don't get the whole effect.
You lose ALL reason and ability to think clearly......it's insidious, and horrible, and you cannot see it while it's happening.
The only way to really understand how it works is to be there, and I really don't recommend that learning curve, because it's information nobody should ever have.
It's also something you can never get back from wholly.
|
|
