|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 20, 2023 19:14:22 GMT
There are mystical things. As for instance we can see in Japan's folklore or movies as The Ring (1998) or Dark Waters (2002).
Many people saw ghosts or goblins. Atheists risk ruining all that things. They make people skip what is sealed by some mystical force. Laughing at things known from the very ancient times let the spirits be angrier and danger. Finally their lack of faith makes evil to grow and expand.
We are asking what is going on with the whole universe, and why is it being ruined. Good spirits are under the world's skin, underneath the tissue of its blood, and they are silently crying out. The evil ones are plotting for the next terrible revenge. Atheists break the balance down. Soviet satanists had started it and their servants are hunting for the souls of the innocent. The innocents are in the greatest danger today. Pits of tars are everywhere, and to turn the way off is easy.
To fight against demons there must be lots of faith. We believe mostly because it is obvious and clearly seen; no, we believe in something when it is covered or out of sight. Mystics is exactly the covered. Atheists don't do good, their intentions are self-contradictory, because they deny what others saw. But it is abnormal. If one sees evil spirits he is not mad or cookoo, he has abilities. And he does not have them only if he's trying to cheat make everyone to be deceived. If he acts sincerely, he's got his abilities. Psychology sometimes is not what it is. A psychologist isn't the doctor indeed, he's a person, and being a person he can, for example, to know your life to blackmail you or to widespread the info about you to FBI. If we didn't destroy the good spirits by our rejecting the hidden within the woods, fields, forests, lands, canyons, we could feel much better. Remember all those legends that are represented in S. King's novels as "Pet Cemetery" or "It". Spirits are balance. Like day and night, male and female, black and white.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 18, 2023 11:58:24 GMT
I find the idea that the God who created the laws of physics being unable to alter them or ignore them to perform miracles at his leisure to be highly unlikely. Yes, I know that exactly this argument is enough powerful against different mystical things. (Actually, anything mystical is critically hard to prove, that's for sure.) However, this argument is not so good. Why so? First of all, supposedly it appeared in the Thomas Aquinas's Sum of Theology firstly. This argument claims more, than just impossibility for God to disobey to His own rules (or self honestly, whatsoever), it mentions "the laws of nature", which are in trouble to have the same level as God's rules. For instance, if God has been resurrected (Jesus Christ as God), it seems to be a violation of the rules of nature, but it has happened. Could God predict this before? Of course, He could. So, why can't He predict such cases where miracles might be used? And what could stop or make Him to create miracle-less world? Personally I see no necessity for God to follow exactly rational and kinda rules. God can do whatever He thinks is good. Maybe sometimes for some people miracles are better, than just firm physics. At least, I believe miracles might be happening, and possible to happen even today. And for me decision of God to allow miracles to occur isn't impossible. |
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP 
Elder
Posts: 2,696 
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Oct 19, 2023 8:40:02 GMT
I find the idea that the God who created the laws of physics being unable to alter them or ignore them to perform miracles at his leisure to be highly unlikely. Yes, I know that exactly this argument is enough powerful against different mystical things. (Actually, anything mystical is critically hard to prove, that's for sure.) However, this argument is not so good. Why so? First of all, supposedly it appeared in the Thomas Aquinas's Sum of Theology firstly. This argument claims more, than just impossibility for God to disobey to His own rules (or self honestly, whatsoever), it mentions "the laws of nature", which are in trouble to have the same level as God's rules. For instance, if God has been resurrected (Jesus Christ as God), it seems to be a violation of the rules of nature, but it has happened. Could God predict this before? Of course, He could. So, why can't He predict such cases where miracles might be used? And what could stop or make Him to create miracle-less world? Personally I see no necessity for God to follow exactly rational and kinda rules. God can do whatever He thinks is good. Maybe sometimes for some people miracles are better, than just firm physics. At least, I believe miracles might be happening, and possible to happen even today. And for me decision of God to allow miracles to occur isn't impossible. Ah, so, natural laws really just refer to the limitations built into the material universe by God and how things are made to act in it. Such laws have no moral dimension or any other dimension by which God is obligated to bind himself to, they just serve his purposes to run our universe and give it coherence. He is not beholden to nature or our world and can break those laws to his hearts content if he so desires because those laws and the creation that they give order to are completely beholden to him instead. The only laws that God binds himself by and the only thing that in any way limits God is his own morality, his own moral code which binds all of his creations as well. But even this is not really a limitation because his moral code stems from his own nature and personality and he hasn't the slightest inclination to do otherwise anyhow. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 19, 2023 13:32:59 GMT
Yes, I know that exactly this argument is enough powerful against different mystical things. (Actually, anything mystical is critically hard to prove, that's for sure.) However, this argument is not so good. Why so? First of all, supposedly it appeared in the Thomas Aquinas's Sum of Theology firstly. This argument claims more, than just impossibility for God to disobey to His own rules (or self honestly, whatsoever), it mentions "the laws of nature", which are in trouble to have the same level as God's rules. For instance, if God has been resurrected (Jesus Christ as God), it seems to be a violation of the rules of nature, but it has happened. Could God predict this before? Of course, He could. So, why can't He predict such cases where miracles might be used? And what could stop or make Him to create miracle-less world? Personally I see no necessity for God to follow exactly rational and kinda rules. God can do whatever He thinks is good. Maybe sometimes for some people miracles are better, than just firm physics. At least, I believe miracles might be happening, and possible to happen even today. And for me decision of God to allow miracles to occur isn't impossible. Ah, so, natural laws really just refer to the limitations built into the material universe by God and how things are made to act in it. Such laws have no moral dimension or any other dimension by which God is obligated to bind himself to, they just serve his purposes to run our universe and give it coherence. He is not beholden to nature or our world and can break those laws to his hearts content if he so desires because those laws and the creation that they give order to are completely beholden to him instead. The only laws that God binds himself by and the only thing that in any way limits God is his own morality, his own moral code which binds all of his creations as well. But even this is not really a limitation because his moral code stems from his own nature and personality and he hasn't the slightest inclination to do otherwise anyhow. Hardly to disagree that the only moral set of principles for God is a set of his own moral principles. I see it in the way that God and His own decisions are the same. A person, to compare, presumably has sorta complicated psychological structure (I'm not sure I believe in this psychology, but anyway), and his decisions and wishes might not correspond or, using a metaphor, "decisions and wishes dance with each other in a symphony". The point is that God is able to violate his own moral principles are absolutely healthy. I also would find such restrictions for Him to be problematic. God can do whatever He wishes to. Perhaps, it was a fault of mine not to define what did I mean by miracles. I understand a miracle as such a God's intervention to our reality that goes according to God's plans, but for us, people, it looks like a violation of the laws of nature. It's like what was said by God at the end of "the Book of Job" that since Job (and anyone else) doesn't know what God's plans nobody can be certain about anything that is going on. I guess if we believe God is good, then why to worry about His choices, if whatever scenario it goes God knows what is within our hearts, that's why He knows what almost nobody can say about himself. I mean God knows us better, than we do. Something like that. So, briefly: miracles might be put into the God's scenario, but for us things may look like no interventions are possible. One thing here I find to be philosophical. Here it is: let's say that the matter (or the source of the Universe) has its properties or qualities, and those properties have its rules. (Since we believe properties have specific relations from within like; 2H and 1O = H2O, etc.) Okay, it seems fine to imagine, but what about making things to have more properties or changing that policies of the properties? To say it in a quite different way: if the matter had N properties, couldn't it impossible for the matter to have K (where K<N or K>N) properties while not transforming into something new? Again, using an ordinary example: let's say Oxygen has 10 properties, is it possible for Oxygen to have 11, 9 or whatever N (N≠10) properties, but to still be Oxygen? For my opinion, I believe God can do things different in that way. For me this means that the laws of nature aren't necessary the result of the properties of the matter. |
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 15, 2024 16:03:25 GMT
Ah, so, natural laws really just refer to the limitations built into the material universe by God and how things are made to act in it. Such laws have no moral dimension or any other dimension by which God is obligated to bind himself to, they just serve his purposes to run our universe and give it coherence. He is not beholden to nature or our world and can break those laws to his hearts content if he so desires because those laws and the creation that they give order to are completely beholden to him instead. The only laws that God binds himself by and the only thing that in any way limits God is his own morality, his own moral code which binds all of his creations as well. But even this is not really a limitation because his moral code stems from his own nature and personality and he hasn't the slightest inclination to do otherwise anyhow. Hardly to disagree that the only moral set of principles for God is a set of his own moral principles. I see it in the way that God and His own decisions are the same. A person, to compare, presumably has sorta complicated psychological structure (I'm not sure I believe in this psychology, but anyway), and his decisions and wishes might not correspond or, using a metaphor, "decisions and wishes dance with each other in a symphony". The point is that God is able to violate his own moral principles are absolutely healthy. I also would find such restrictions for Him to be problematic. God can do whatever He wishes to. Perhaps, it was a fault of mine not to define what did I mean by miracles. I understand a miracle as such a God's intervention to our reality that goes according to God's plans, but for us, people, it looks like a violation of the laws of nature. It's like what was said by God at the end of "the Book of Job" that since Job (and anyone else) doesn't know what God's plans nobody can be certain about anything that is going on. I guess if we believe God is good, then why to worry about His choices, if whatever scenario it goes God knows what is within our hearts, that's why He knows what almost nobody can say about himself. I mean God knows us better, than we do. Something like that. So, briefly: miracles might be put into the God's scenario, but for us things may look like no interventions are possible. One thing here I find to be philosophical. Here it is: let's say that the matter (or the source of the Universe) has its properties or qualities, and those properties have its rules. (Since we believe properties have specific relations from within like; 2H and 1O = H2O, etc.) Okay, it seems fine to imagine, but what about making things to have more properties or changing that policies of the properties? To say it in a quite different way: if the matter had N properties, couldn't it impossible for the matter to have K (where K<N or K>N) properties while not transforming into something new? Again, using an ordinary example: let's say Oxygen has 10 properties, is it possible for Oxygen to have 11, 9 or whatever N (N≠10) properties, but to still be Oxygen? For my opinion, I believe God can do things different in that way. For me this means that the laws of nature aren't necessary the result of the properties of the matter. Right, so harm avoidance, or avoidance of chaos in favor of order is what Biblical morality is about, but God being all knowing knows what will cause harm and what will not, so best follow him, eat from the Tree of Life and live, rather than the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (choosing these concepts for yourself) and die. I've recently run into this Neoplatonic Gnostic cult that my mother turned out to be a part of secretly until my listening to God converted her to Christianity, and their god believes in eugenics. This is why my God pointed out that even were this god true, which it isn't, it shouldn't be followed by anyone because it's immoral. Even God it seems believes in a set of ethics that transcends his own decrees (I order you to do this) but these ethics are him and his nature by which he makes those decrees |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 23, 2024 6:52:00 GMT
Hardly to disagree that the only moral set of principles for God is a set of his own moral principles. I see it in the way that God and His own decisions are the same. A person, to compare, presumably has sorta complicated psychological structure (I'm not sure I believe in this psychology, but anyway), and his decisions and wishes might not correspond or, using a metaphor, "decisions and wishes dance with each other in a symphony". The point is that God is able to violate his own moral principles are absolutely healthy. I also would find such restrictions for Him to be problematic. God can do whatever He wishes to. Perhaps, it was a fault of mine not to define what did I mean by miracles. I understand a miracle as such a God's intervention to our reality that goes according to God's plans, but for us, people, it looks like a violation of the laws of nature. It's like what was said by God at the end of "the Book of Job" that since Job (and anyone else) doesn't know what God's plans nobody can be certain about anything that is going on. I guess if we believe God is good, then why to worry about His choices, if whatever scenario it goes God knows what is within our hearts, that's why He knows what almost nobody can say about himself. I mean God knows us better, than we do. Something like that. So, briefly: miracles might be put into the God's scenario, but for us things may look like no interventions are possible. One thing here I find to be philosophical. Here it is: let's say that the matter (or the source of the Universe) has its properties or qualities, and those properties have its rules. (Since we believe properties have specific relations from within like; 2H and 1O = H2O, etc.) Okay, it seems fine to imagine, but what about making things to have more properties or changing that policies of the properties? To say it in a quite different way: if the matter had N properties, couldn't it impossible for the matter to have K (where K<N or K>N) properties while not transforming into something new? Again, using an ordinary example: let's say Oxygen has 10 properties, is it possible for Oxygen to have 11, 9 or whatever N (N≠10) properties, but to still be Oxygen? For my opinion, I believe God can do things different in that way. For me this means that the laws of nature aren't necessary the result of the properties of the matter. Right, so harm avoidance, or avoidance of chaos in favor of order is what Biblical morality is about, but God being all knowing knows what will cause harm and what will not, so best follow him, eat from the Tree of Life and live, rather than the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (choosing these concepts for yourself) and die. I've recently run into this Neoplatonic Gnostic cult that my mother turned out to be a part of secretly until my listening to God converted her to Christianity, and their god believes in eugenics. This is why my God pointed out that even were this god true, which it isn't, it shouldn't be followed by anyone because it's immoral. Even God it seems believes in a set of ethics that transcends his own decrees (I order you to do this) but these ethics are him and his nature by which he makes those decrees All knowing? If that were the case then he wouldn't of sent several angel's into Sodom and Gamora several times to go liik and see if there were any godly men in the city. Ir he wouldn't of left Adam and eve alone with a talking snake for long enough for them to eat from a tree that he put in the middle of the place . the list continues but you get the idea. |
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 25, 2024 21:13:18 GMT
Right, so harm avoidance, or avoidance of chaos in favor of order is what Biblical morality is about, but God being all knowing knows what will cause harm and what will not, so best follow him, eat from the Tree of Life and live, rather than the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (choosing these concepts for yourself) and die. I've recently run into this Neoplatonic Gnostic cult that my mother turned out to be a part of secretly until my listening to God converted her to Christianity, and their god believes in eugenics. This is why my God pointed out that even were this god true, which it isn't, it shouldn't be followed by anyone because it's immoral. Even God it seems believes in a set of ethics that transcends his own decrees (I order you to do this) but these ethics are him and his nature by which he makes those decrees All knowing? If that were the case then he wouldn't of sent several angel's into Sodom and Gamora several times to go liik and see if there were any godly men in the city. Ir he wouldn't of left Adam and eve alone with a talking snake for long enough for them to eat from a tree that he put in the middle of the place . the list continues but you get the idea. So, I don't have an answer to these objections nor will I pretend that I do because I think that one of the big problems in Christianity today is Ad Hocism where someone will ask a hard question about scripture and the Pastor will invent an answer that doesn't make sense because it's not from the text or the cultural context of scripture and was just invented on the fly, instead of just saying, "I don't know I'll research the context of this and relevant data and get back to you." The only thing I really have to say is that what you mentioned and an all knowing God are not mutually exclusive. There could be reasons for it that our All Knowing God knows. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" kind of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 28, 2024 8:20:17 GMT
All knowing? If that were the case then he wouldn't of sent several angel's into Sodom and Gamora several times to go liik and see if there were any godly men in the city. Ir he wouldn't of left Adam and eve alone with a talking snake for long enough for them to eat from a tree that he put in the middle of the place . the list continues but you get the idea. So, I don't have an answer to these objections nor will I pretend that I do because I think that one of the big problems in Christianity today is Ad Hocism where someone will ask a hard question about scripture and the Pastor will invent an answer that doesn't make sense because it's not from the text or the cultural context of scripture and was just invented on the fly, instead of just saying, "I don't know I'll research the context of this and relevant data and get back to you." The only thing I really have to say is that what you mentioned and an all knowing God are not mutually exclusive. There could be reasons for it that our All Knowing God knows. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" kind of thing. So instead of excepting that there is a contradiction in the bible which is what an ohnest person would do you instead decided to try and save yourself from the possibility that you might have to question your core beliefs and seeing as how the truth is not #1 to you you decided to just say "sky daddy smart human not smart" and brush it off , how dishonest of you. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 28, 2024 10:38:08 GMT
All knowing? If that were the case then he wouldn't of sent several angel's into Sodom and Gamora several times to go liik and see if there were any godly men in the city. Ir he wouldn't of left Adam and eve alone with a talking snake for long enough for them to eat from a tree that he put in the middle of the place . the list continues but you get the idea.
Shakespeare was all-knowing of his plays, and had absolute power over the script. And yet he still required separate characters to enact the scene, rather than
a long monologue on morality in abstract legalese which nobody listens to.
As for the tree of life, the question is about free will.
Shakespeare gives his characters the will to enact tragedies which accent the humor in his comedies in a subtle twist of art.
But so long as you still see the fall of man as a tragedy without legend,
you will not realize that the tree of life is what we call marijuana today...
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 28, 2024 19:45:06 GMT
So, I don't have an answer to these objections nor will I pretend that I do because I think that one of the big problems in Christianity today is Ad Hocism where someone will ask a hard question about scripture and the Pastor will invent an answer that doesn't make sense because it's not from the text or the cultural context of scripture and was just invented on the fly, instead of just saying, "I don't know I'll research the context of this and relevant data and get back to you." The only thing I really have to say is that what you mentioned and an all knowing God are not mutually exclusive. There could be reasons for it that our All Knowing God knows. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" kind of thing. So instead of excepting that there is a contradiction in the bible which is what an ohnest person would do you instead decided to try and save yourself from the possibility that you might have to question your core beliefs and seeing as how the truth is not #1 to you you decided to just say "sky daddy smart human not smart" and brush it off , how dishonest of you. Huh? That's not at all what I said. I just said that I didn't have an answer because I hadn't studied it except that your critiques and an All Knowing God are not mutually exclusive logically. You simply honed in on the very last two sentences and ignored the rest. And "sky daddy smart human not smart", is a very relevant thing to say in a discussion about the omniscience of God I think. |
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,696
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 28, 2024 19:48:11 GMT
All knowing? If that were the case then he wouldn't of sent several angel's into Sodom and Gamora several times to go liik and see if there were any godly men in the city. Ir he wouldn't of left Adam and eve alone with a talking snake for long enough for them to eat from a tree that he put in the middle of the place . the list continues but you get the idea.
Shakespeare was all-knowing of his plays, and had absolute power over the script. And yet he still required separate characters to enact the scene, rather than
a long monologue on morality in abstract legalese which nobody listens to.
As for the tree of life, the question is about free will.
Shakespeare gives his characters the will to enact tragedies which accent the humor in his comedies in a subtle twist of art.
But so long as you still see the fall of man as a tragedy without legend,
you will not realize that the tree of life is what we call marijuana today...
The bolded part is a good point. God very much is like a play write so it fits. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 29, 2024 22:45:36 GMT
So instead of excepting that there is a contradiction in the bible which is what an ohnest person would do you instead decided to try and save yourself from the possibility that you might have to question your core beliefs and seeing as how the truth is not #1 to you you decided to just say "sky daddy smart human not smart" and brush it off , how dishonest of you. Huh? That's not at all what I said. I just said that I didn't have an answer because I hadn't studied it except that your critiques and an All Knowing God are not mutually exclusive logically. You simply honed in on the very last two sentences and ignored the rest. And "sky daddy smart human not smart", is a very relevant thing to say in a discussion about the omniscience of God I think. by saying what you said you are off putting having to deal with the contradiction so that you dont have to examine your core beliefs |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Apr 29, 2024 22:54:36 GMT
All knowing? If that were the case then he wouldn't of sent several angel's into Sodom and Gamora several times to go liik and see if there were any godly men in the city. Ir he wouldn't of left Adam and eve alone with a talking snake for long enough for them to eat from a tree that he put in the middle of the place . the list continues but you get the idea.
Shakespeare was all-knowing of his plays, and had absolute power over the script. And yet he still required separate characters to enact the scene, rather than
a long monologue on morality in abstract legalese which nobody listens to.
As for the tree of life, the question is about free will.
Shakespeare gives his characters the will to enact tragedies which accent the humor in his comedies in a subtle twist of art.
But so long as you still see the fall of man as a tragedy without legend,
you will not realize that the tree of life is what we call marijuana today...
I dont see what the comparison between Shakespeare and God is? And the tree of life is not weed  those pro pot head interpretations are hardly igknolaged by anyone other then people that think weed is some magic substance, ive had probably 50 different strands in my smoking/eating days and theres nothing magical about weed it just makes your mind think about anything and give you the Munchies. The knolage of good and evil aka the "tree" is the human being people are referred to as trees in the ocult and Kabbalah |
|
those pro pot head interpretations are hardly igknolaged by anyone other then people that think weed is some magic substance, ive had probably 50 different strands in my smoking/eating days and theres nothing magical about weed it just makes your mind think about anything and give you the Munchies. The knolage of good and evil aka the "tree" is the human being people are referred to as trees in the ocult and Kabbalah