Gosh, maybe that Karl Marx fella was onto something about "Religion is the opiate of the masses" thing...

I want some.

All I'm saying is step away with the Drug War, you apostate Red Bushies!

Why do they hate God so much that they lock up Americans for just wanting to be like Moses?

I've heard that mushrooms can cause very religious experiences as well.

Is anybody else reminded of The History of the World, Part I?

Knights jump Queen! Bishop jumps Queen! Pawns jump Queen! Gang bang!

Those visions don't "need to be explained". Fuck em.

10yrs or so ago i read a canadian version of 'high times' and it had an article about how the oil used in the anointing lineage was hashish oil and how jesus was persecuted because he wanted to give the masses access to the oil and the priestly class wanted to keep it to themselves. quite the three day buzz there at the end.

I think the more likely explanation is that a bunch of zealots made a lot of shit up and put it in a book to wow the rubes.

Am I the only one who wants to hear Issur's take on this? Something about how the goyiem should get high more often perhaps?

Someone is wrong on the internet!

"he was very familiar with the affects of the ayahuasca plant"

The "affects?" Did the plant have an angry disposition?

Spellcheck is not a catchall, people.

Um, it's British. You know, they talk about "affects" to give it "colour".

Since we speak English, not American, they get to decide how to use words - not us.

Explaining far out religious stories as being drug-inspired only lends credibility to the assertions of the bible-as-literal-truth group.

The bible is a 2000-year-old book of bedtime stories. That is all.

Actually, this line of inquiry is not new. We've known forever that certain religious texts of the prophetic persuasion were inspired by plant catalysts (the Rig Veda, the Popol Vuh, etc.) because the authors SAID so.

Certain books of the Bible (Ezekiel and the Revelation of St. John for instance) are full of trippy shit that is unambiguously indicative of a psychedelic experience. This may or may not have been occasioned by a plant or fungal catalyst, but it is certainly a fact that the Hellenistic culture that was absorbed into early Christianity also had a clear history of psychedelic religious practices (à la the Eleusinian Mysteries). As taboo as the topic is among the heirs (and rejectors) of the Judeo-Christian religions, it's actually just as pointless to study the origins of Biblical religious myth without investigating the ethnobotanical context of the ancient Near East as it would be to study Amazonian shamanic practices without acknowledging the impact of ayahuasca.

This is not just some hokey new age revisionist history. While there are certainly a slew of new-agey authors with fantastical opinions on the subject, the best information always comes from serious scholars doing peer-reviewed research. I recommend works on the subject by guys like Dan Merkur (University of Toronto) and Carl Ruck (Boston University).

@11.

ummm... no. When used as a noun, "affect" does not mean "effect," even in Britain. Perhaps in Podunk, WV, but not in proper English (American, British, or other). It's a matter of definition, not spelling. "Affect" reflects a disposition, "effect" is a result.