It has came to my attention that there is a great debate on the internet regarding the ingredients of the "Holy anointing oil", with some saying that Kaneh Bosem translates to cannabis. I was rather surprised to find out that this belief is supported by the Ancient Hebrew Research Center. Ancient Hebrew Research Center > The Hebrew phrase qaneh bosem can be defined as “an aromatic resinous reed plant” and is descriptive of the cannabis plant. > Just as the word “cinnamon” is derived from a Semitic origin; it is possible that “cannabis” is also of Semitic origin. > Cannabis was known and used in the Near East at the time of the Hebrew people. **The Guardian** I was shocked to find out that this claim was documented in The Guardian newspaper, which is a British national newspaper. The Guardian > Jesus 'healed using cannabis' **The Times of Israel** The claim is further supported by the Times of Israel. The Times of Israel > Do you know that “cannabis” comes from the Hebrew word “קנבוס” (“KaNaBoS”)? And קנבוס actually comes from the ancient Biblical term, “קנה בשם” (“KaNeH BoSeM”), one of the ingredients of the anointing oil delineated in Exodus 30:23! **Wikipedia** It is only when I came to Wikipedia that I found out that there are opponents to this theory, such as Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Wikipedia > Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan notes that "On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp plant. Benet argued that equating Keneh Bosem with sweet cane could be traced to a mistranslation in the Septuagint, which mistook Keneh Bosem, later referred to as "cannabos" in the Talmud, as "kalabos", a common Egyptian marsh cane plant. **Youtube** The claim that Cannabis was one of the ingredients of the "Holy anointing oil" is also made in a youtube video. Kaneh Bosm The Hidden Story of Cannabis in the Old Testament **Question** What do Christians believe Kaneh Bosem translates to?

> Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a widely used treatment for > men with symptomatic hypogonadism. The benefits seen with TRT, such as > increased libido and energy level, beneficial effects on bone density, > strength and muscle as well as cardioprotective effects, have been > well-documented. Source I am seeking the Catholic perspective on a particular type of treatment that seems to border on the use of drugs and hormonal enhancements, which bear similarities to contraceptives used by women or steroid use by bodybuilders. Specifically, I am referring to Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT). I understand that TRT does not have contraceptive effects in men, but it is a hormonal treatment that can potentially give men certain advantages in life. These advantages could be perceived as being outside of God’s plan. This treatment appears to require a lifelong commitment and, while it does provide health benefits, there may also be some drawbacks. From a moral perspective, should a Catholic man feel at ease proceeding with this kind of treatment after consulting with a doctor? I am interested in understanding the ethical implications of this decision within the context of Catholic teachings.

Around the world, many religious practices incorporate naturally-occurring hallucinogenic compounds using plants like [*Cannabis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis) , [*Datura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura) , [*S. divinorum*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum) , and [peyote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote) ; fungi like [*P. cubensis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybe_cubensis) ; and preparations like [ayahuasca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayahuasca) . Are there Christian churches with practices which incorporate hallucinogens?

What does the Bible say about taking drugs like heroin and marijuana? Does the Bible say anything about that or not?

Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34307/what-is-the-catholic-churchs-position-on-recreational-marijuana-use Note that I’m not asking whether or not the church *approves* of drug use. I’m asking if they think it’s morally acceptable for harder drugs to be legalized.

> The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. CCC 2291 > Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise. To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem. Attempts, however limited, to legalize so-called “recreational drugs”, are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. Substitute drugs are not an adequate therapy but rather a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon. Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use. Pope Francis As we can see, the Catholic Church seems to firmly oppose the use drugs. But at the same time, the Catholic Church seems to permit moderate use of alcohol. This position spawns much controversy among both alcohol prohibitionists and drug legalization supporters because of the claims that from the medical point of view there are no traits that would distinguish ethanol from other drugs like heroine, LSD, opium, marijuana, etc. Indeed, according to these claims, ethanol is even more harmful and dangerous than some of the others drugs condemned by the Church like marijuana. Therefore, as per this line of argument, Vatican should either prohibit the use of alcohol as sinful (which is hardly possible for liturgical reasons and would require re-interpreting some biblical passages like the one about the Wedding in Cana) or cease implying that the use of other drugs is inherently evil. I find it hard to believe that this critique hasn't reached Vatican yet. Are there any documents or statements that would explain the Church's teaching on this subject?

This says: > Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all (CCC 2290). The statement "Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all" can be found elsewhere like here and somewhere there . I have two concerns on that statement. --- **First concern**: But what about CCC 229**1**? --- **Second concern**: The Catholic Church is against masturbation. My opinion is that smoking is worse than masturbation so if the Catholic Church will not allow even a single instance of masturbation, how can it allow even a single instance of smoking? The Catholic Church believes that action that lead to good effects or no bad effects does not mean the action is good. But an action that has a lot of bad effects and serious risks and little good effects to justify the bad effects and serious risks, how can such an action be anything but bad? Does the Catholic Church really consider masturbation to be more harmful or a graver offense than smoking? Does the Catholic Church consider non-excessive smoking to be not an offense or not harmful at all? I find would it quite absurd if either is the case. All of the Catholic Church's arguments against masturbation apply to smoking as well. From the Catechism: > 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of > the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the > Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and > the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly > maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely > disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for > whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its > purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual > relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the > total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the > context of true love is achieved."139 > > To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility > and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective > immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other > psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a > minimum, moral culpability. So why can't we say anything like this? > By smoking is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the > lungs in order to derive pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the > Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of > the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that > smoking is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The > deliberate use of the respiratory faculty, for whatever reason, that > causes harm to anyone is essentially contrary to its purpose." For > here respiratory pleasure is sought at the cost the health of one's > self or others which is demanded by the moral order and in which the > total meaning of health and human breathing is achieved." > > To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility > and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective > immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other > psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a > minimum, moral culpability. I found a thread related to this topic on a Catholic forum , but the matter doesn't seem to have been resolved. First post in the thread (I added the bold): > Now, how can we compare masturbation to anything else by allegory? I > compare it to eating nutrition-less foods, or smoking. We consider a > bit of absolutely-unhealthy chocolate now-and-again to be acceptable, > or even a pack of cigarettes on a Sunday. These are not considered > grave sins, only disordered pleasures! Nutrition, however is the very > point of the digestive faculty, and **proper-breathing is the very** > **foundation of the lungs**. By comparison, masturbation is an abuse of > the sexual faculty; so, all faculties in a human body being equal, > masturbation can only be a disordered attachment, not a grave sin. The > parallel is complete. > > If you can eat a big chocolate cake once a year, why can't you > masturbate once a year? **Smoking?** Red wine? Fatty foods? **How far can** > **this stretch?** We cannot deny everything to our bodies, like gnostics. > This is very frustrating because I see no problem whatever, yet my > conscience has been formed entirely around avoiding masturbation. A later post : > Can someone explain why that is not just as disordered as > masturbation? Smoking is purely for one's own pleasure (just like > masturbation) and it uses a part of the body in a way that is at odds > with its intended purpose (just like masturbation). A later post : > Why is the deliberate over-stimulation of the glottis, tongue, > pleasure-receptors, etc. only "potentially" a (venial) sin, whereas > the deliberate over-stimulation of the glands-penis or clitoral > faculty always "actually" a mortal sin? This seems very odd and > dualistic. --- Below I have listed some arguments for my opinion that smoking is worse than masturbation. I hope I won't come across as someone trying to justify masturbation. I believe it is immoral but that smoking is immoral as well and I am trying to argue my case that smoking is immoral based on the fact smoking is more harmful than masturbation. I find it quite absurd that the Catholic Church would not mind if their followers smoked and taught their children to smoke since that seems to be the logical conclusion if non-excessive smoking is deemed not sinful. (Just imagine a priest visiting his (adult) nieces or nephews for Christmas and giving them a pack of cigarettes) **Some points about smoking and masturbation:** 1. If smoking and masturbation are harmful recreational activities, *smoking is artificial* and therefore more harmful. 2. Smoking introduces a *new substance or substances into the body* while masturbation has little physical difference from sex in terms of what the body releases or takes in. Smoking of course is of a higher category than eating junk food. 3. Smoking can cause ["vascular stenosis, lung cancer,\[46\] heart attacks\[47\] and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."][10] *Masturbation has no such physical health risks.* Masturbation can be argued to have mental health risks but so does smoking. "No causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder." 4. "The medical consensus is that masturbation is a medically healthy and psychologically normal habit.". I don't think there's any such medical consensus for smoking. I mean just look at this section on smoking health risks on Wikipedia. *Smoking during pregnancy can cause fetuses to have mental illnesses.* If masturbation during pregnancy has greater risks to fetuses to have mental illnesses far more than smoking, I'll sell my possessions and give to the poor. 5. *Smoking is harmful to the environment.* The release of semen into toilet bowls or trash cans may be harmful, but it's no more harmful than sex is. There are zones for smoking, but there aren't any signs in bathrooms or airplanes that say "no masturbating". Airplanes have smoke detectors, but they don't have semen detectors. 6. Generally, people are significantly more concerned when hearing of a *12-year old boy who smokes* but not of one who masturbates. Generally, cigarettes are not allowed to be sold to minors while babies have been reported to stimulate their genitals instinctively. 7. Tell me honestly, would you rather have a smoking addiction or a masturbation addiction? If you were a parent and hypothetically had to choose between having any of your kids with a masturbation addiction and any with a smoking addiction, you would choose masturbation. It hasn't been shown to have high risk of cancer or organ damage compared to smoking. 8. We don't hear news about masturbation addicted husbands beating their wives and children but we do hear news about (legal) drug addicted husbands beating their wives and children. 9. You can't donate blood if you've masturbated in the last day, but you can donate blood if you've smoked :D 10. When you are hospitalized, doctors don't care if you do or used to masturbate. But they do care if you do or used to smoke.

Venezuelan government/regime is destroying the country through corruption, drugtraffiking to the USA and Europe, murder, kleptocracy, unjustified imprisonments. The government palace is full of symbols and objects of demon worship and "santero" altars. They are starving the population of the country without water, electricity, gasoline, security, health care, justice, etc. Venezuela seems to be the pre-apocalyptic laboratory! Should I consider them as the authorities imposed by God, in order to pray for them and not against them? How should I pray?

This says: > Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all (CCC 2290). The statement "Smoking in moderation is not a sin at all" can be found elsewhere like here and somewhere there . I have two concerns on that statement. --- **First concern**: But what about CCC 229**1**? > Respect for health > > 2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by > God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the > needs of others and the common good. > > Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in > the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach > maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, > employment, and social assistance. > > 2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does > not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that > tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for > it's sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By > its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a > conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships. > > 2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of > excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur > grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own > and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air. > > 2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and > life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave > offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are > scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, > since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral > law. Smoking involves drugs such as marijuana or nicotine right? So how can smoking be permitted under non-medical circumstances? I operate under CCC 2291 not prohibiting drinking coffee in moderation as caffeine , while it is a drug, is GRAS and CCC 2291 instead referring to drugs that have or should have government warnings or prescriptions from doctors. --- **Second concern**: The Catholic Church is against masturbation, but it seems to me that smoking is worse than masturbation .

Several US states have passed voter initiatives to allow recreational marijuana use for adults. What is the Catholic Church’s official position on this issue?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: >2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially [...] the protection of security and health, **especially with respect to dangers like drugs**, pornography, alcoholism, etc.; > >2290 **The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.** Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air. > >2291 **The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.** Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law. Unfortunately, the Catechism does not provide a definition for the word _drug_ or a description of what constitutes a distinction between _drug_ and _medicine_. Paragraph 2290 includes food and does not therefore instruct abstinence but temperance, as it states, even with substances such as alcohol, tobacco, and medicines, which according to most definitions are indeed drugs. In addition, Paragraph 2291 excepts from the prohibition on drugs strictly therapeutic use. This seems to conflate the two terms _drug_ and _medicine_, even though the use of one is prohibited and the use of the other is condoned with temperance. In many western cultures, prohibition and control of substances is a relatively new practice, at least in terms of the lifetime of the Church. Is the prohibition of these substances by the church contemporaneous? **How has the position of the Catholic Church changed over time, from the Early Church Fathers until now, in condoning, instructing temperance, or commanding strict abstinence from the use of substances that perish with use, either for medical treatment or purposes other than medical treatment?** ------ Edit to assist answers for bounty: I'm looking for a well sourced answer that gives an overview of the progression of moral and practical teachings concerning drugs, especially citing those traditional sources that mention substances or uses specifically, and considers any such progression alongside drug (or anti-drug) policies of nations like the US and the UK. An excellent answer would demonstrate how the use of some substances that were once permitted with temperance are now prohibited (or vice versa) if that is the case, or demonstrate that the church has always deferred the definition of "illicit drugs" to local churches and their (secular) legal systems, etc.

Almost every denomination and sect of Christianity believes it is wrong to use cannabis. For some reason they always quote Scripture that pertains to alcohol as reasons for why one should not use it. Why do Rastafarians believe it is okay to use cannabis?

Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that using the drug *N,N*-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT or *N,N*-DMT) is sinful and contrary to Christian beliefs? What is the stance of the RCC on this drug? I have heard that this drug is not addictive, has no side effects, and is basically safer than alcohol or cigarettes. Many people using it have experienced effects similar to near-death experiences , and find that it has life-changing positive affects on them and on their spiritual life.

As I am aware most Christians regard the physical and spiritual effects of Cannabis as the same as use of alcohol for intoxication, and that its use is not permitted by their doctrines. Contrarily, some Christian denominations such as the Rastafari and Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church not only allow its use but strongly suggest its use for meditation and communication with God. Now, I realize that Cannabis use is a controversial topic for many devout Christians and many will not give it a second thought as to whether it has any place in worship. Through some research I have landed upon the following article regarding its use in the time of Jesus: Jesus 'healed using cannabis' . Cannabis is often referenced in the Bible as Calamus (hebrew 'קנה-בשם' or "kaneh bosm"), as in the following scripture: >"Take thou also unto thee the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty, and of sweet **calamus** two hundred and fifty" (Exodus 30:23 ). > >"Vedan and Javan traded with yarn for thy wares; massive iron, cassia, and **calamus**, were among thy merchandise" (Ezekiel 27:19 ). > >"Spikenard and saffron, **calamus** and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices" (Song of Songs 4:14 ). There is no debate that Cannabis was used in the time of the Hebrews and throughout the time of Jesus Christ. I am neither for nor against the use of Cannabis, I only wish to see arguments for/against its use as an aid in spiritual connection with God and developing a deeper understanding of his Word. Any insights on this?

A common position among many Christians in America is that the use of tobacco, alcohol, and other types of drugs (marijuana, etc.) is immoral and sinful. Paul seems to indicate that, in the context of food at least, nothing should be considered forbidden: > Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart > from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and > teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose > consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence > from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those > who believe and know the truth. 4 **For everything created by God is > good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with > thanksgiving**, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. ([1 Timothy 4:1–5, ESV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+4%3A1-5&version=ESV)) What, then, is the Biblical basis for why the use of tobacco and other types of drugs are considered by many to be immoral or sinful?

In Galatians 5:20, among the deeds of the flesh, Paul lists "pharmakeia," which, as i understand, is commonly translated as sorcery or witchcraft, referring to the use or administering of drugs or poisons or spells or connection to spirits, sometimes in connection with idolatry, that may possibly lead to deceptions or enticements of the mind or body. I have also read that this is the Greek word for medicines or drugs that inhibit or alter a person's perception, personality, or behavior, aka, mind altering substances. The common English word pharmacy comes from this word, a store where we get drugs. First off, do I understand this word correctly? Secondly, if I do, what view of drug use in today’s world would be pharmakiea, pharmakiea-like, and deemed as fleshly by Paul, in the spirit of the lists of Galatians 5? Does Paul's view of pharmakeia and the flesh have any bearing on drug use in general and, specifically, on mind-altering drugs or some of today's psychiatric medications? Some psychiatric drugs are mind, mood, desire, behavior, experience, and possibly even perception and to some degree personality, altering drugs. One beginning thought. I understand that in 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul writes to Timothy and says, "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." This is often cited as a speaking to the use of some medicinal treatments as proper and fitting. But where a "little wine" for the stomach and ailments, which would not affect the proper function of the mind and body in a way that blinds, dulls, deceives, entices, or injurs them, or that alters service and worship to God, may speak to using some types of medications for different bodily ailments, I don't know that it necessarily speaks to the case at hand of what examples pharmakeia is speaking against.

The Latter-day Saints subscribe to a revelation dubbed the "Word of Wisdom" which outlines a code of health which Saints in good standing are expected to live. It's found in Doctrine and Covenants 89 . Generally it prohibits use of "herbs" (drugs) such as tobacco for the body, but recommends it for treating cattle. However, the LDS Church is pretty clear that drugs which are prescribed by a competent medical professional (a doctor) are allowed within the recommendations of the doctor. (This has traditionally meant things like morphine, sleeping pills, etc.) When there is sickness or disease and healing is desired, there are a few recommended courses of action, such as obtaining a blessing with faith under the hands of priesthood brethren. Just as important to Latter-day Saints, however, is seeking care using the best medical knowledge available. I've seen this question online before, but haven't found any answers that are definitive or official: **How does the Word of Wisdom or LDS doctrine in general apply to medicinal marijuana (prescribed by a doctor)? Is it prohibited entirely, are there only some permissible cases, or is it A-OK?** (Assume it is legal in the politick; Mormons believe in following the law of the land.) Again, I'm posting here because I'm sure it'll attract higher-quality answers than I've seen elsewhere which are more speculation than citing official or declarative sources.

With the legalization of recreational marijuana in a few states this summer, no longer can the argument against marijuana be that people are supposed to obey those in authority over them (in this instance, the government, who said that marijuana was illegal, but now it is legal) Because marijuana can be used legally now, what arguments do Protestants use against the use of it?