Ceremonial Chemistry

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zimm3r
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zimm3r

Guest
Ok I am currently taking a college course, and the main text is a book called “Ceremonial Chemistry” which is written by Thomas Szasz and at least through the first four chapters he uses the comparison of the ceremony of drugs and the ceremony of the Eucharist (also Jewish Ceremony and the books of Lev. and Deu. in the Bible he attacks). His thesis so far is that the reason some drugs are outlawed is because their ceremony is denounced by society (both from religion and the medical community). He continues his thesis comparing the idea’s of the pharmakoi in ancient Greece to today’s drugs uses (stating they are the same outcast but that at least in ancient times everything of this was acknowleged whereas today we are blind believe religion, medicene, and science are one in the same but we believe they are separate because we are blind, after all we are modern not like those anciet savages).
He keeps going saying that such ceremonies as alcohol at a pub or Holy Communion are socially acceptable but that those same things for marijuana and heroin are not (one classmate pointed out that there are mean drunks but no mean marijuana users). He says the the difference is chemical because that argument can’t truly be made but only ceremonial.

I will try to add more but I am off to another class. Hopefully people can have some insights, maybe some have read it.

P.S The teacher was talking about the HC example and asked “What kind of people believe this?” (trying to get the answers in the lines of Catholic, or Christian, or religious communities, one person shouted out gullible I could help but laugh)

Also the authors speaks with heavy rhetoric but I find his words hollow.
 
I’m not certain about the way your prof is using certain words. The way you describe the use of the word ‘ceremony’ needs a bit more elaboration. When he says that society denounces the “ceremony of drugs”, what does he mean?

On the face of it, you seem to be saying that his claim is that society denounces the activity itself (shooting up and smoking and popping pills), and not the thing in itself (recreational drug use) or the negative effects of the thing. Is this what he means, or is there more to it?

It would seem to me that we humans – as possessors of a veritable chem lab of a body – are performing chemical ceremonies all the time (eating, drinking, exercising, thinking). Unless there’s more to his analysis, his observations ring rather shallow – there must be more to his thought here, or else it borders on trivial…

The Holy Communion example is quite an interesting one in this context. However, your prof (and likely your class) will conflate non-Catholic Christian and Catholic theology of the Eucharist, and that will muddy the waters. Moreover, unless they’re willing to discuss the theology of the Eucharist (rather than simply considering it an act of delusion), the example will fall flat.

Just out of curiosity, in which department is this course being offered?
 
Using drugs is an addiction, not a sacrament. There is nothing ceremonial or holy about using drugs, even legal drugs, but especially not illegal drugs.

Confused thinking reflective of prior drug use.

🤷

Welcome to “higher” education.

😃
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Using drugs is an addiction, not a sacrament. There is nothing ceremonial or holy about using drugs, even legal drugs, but especially not illegal drugs.

Confused thinking reflective of prior drug use.

🤷

Welcome to “higher” education.

😃
Click to expand...
What you mean different opinions meh it is nice. Also he argues that the idea of addiction is over blow that yes there are those who are “addicted” but that calling someone an addict carries a negative connotation and is not that bad. He argues it (illegal drug use) isn’t that drugs are bad (after all it is your body you can do what you want with it) just as alcohol isn’t bad and few are addicts, he says that instead the difference is that alcohol’s ceremony (going to a pub, having a party with music, etc is ok) but marijuna’s isn’t (passing a joint around with different music). He extends this with religious ceremonies that use alcohol (it is ok there) and other ceremonies such as eucharist (that ceremony is ok but why not marijuna or heroin). BTW he says the real presence isn’t real because it is chemically still bread and wine and so it is bread and wine.
 
Arizona_Mike said:
From this kind of college you expect to start a career?
Click to expand...
And you know what college I am going to… or are you just guessing on one teacher’s opinion that he thinks a book attack the drug war is good. I will even defend the teacher, he doesn’t seem hateful towards religion or anything and he isn’t stupid or anything, the teacher is fine it is just the author is convincing with his use of rhetoric and examples etc.
 
Zimm3r said:
Ok I am currently taking a college course, and the main text is a book called “Ceremonial Chemistry” which is written by Thomas Szasz and at least through the first four chapters he uses the comparison of the ceremony of drugs and the ceremony of the Eucharist (also Jewish Ceremony and the books of Lev. and Deu. in the Bible he attacks). His thesis so far is that the reason some drugs are outlawed is because their ceremony is denounced by society (both from religion and the medical community). He continues his thesis comparing the idea’s of the pharmakoi in ancient Greece to today’s drugs uses (stating they are the same outcast but that at least in ancient times everything of this was acknowleged whereas today we are blind believe religion, medicene, and science are one in the same but we believe they are separate because we are blind, after all we are modern not like those anciet savages).
He keeps going saying that such ceremonies as alcohol at a pub or Holy Communion are socially acceptable but that those same things for marijuana and heroin are not (one classmate pointed out that there are mean drunks but no mean marijuana users). He says the the difference is chemical because that argument can’t truly be made but only ceremonial.

I will try to add more but I am off to another class. Hopefully people can have some insights, maybe some have read it.

P.S The teacher was talking about the HC example and asked “What kind of people believe this?” (trying to get the answers in the lines of Catholic, or Christian, or religious communities, one person shouted out gullible I could help but laugh)

Also the authors speaks with heavy rhetoric but I find his words hollow.
Click to expand...
Are you Catholic? I would ask him what he knew about the Sacrament of the Eucharist and how it was founded by Christ Himself? You might point out to him the appropriate Scripture: John 6,48-70 and from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Two, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 3 on the Eucharist :
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

It is amazing that teachers/ professors in secular schools feel free to make such disparaging, prejudical remarks about any tenant of any religious faith. Don’t pick a fight because that could affect your grade but it is amazing that institutions that we all support with our tax money can be so prejudiced. I bet he never says anything disparaging about Islam. 🤷🤷
 
Zimm3r said:
What you mean different opinions meh it is nice. Also he argues that the idea of addiction is over blow that yes there are those who are “addicted” but that calling someone an addict carries a negative connotation and is not that bad. He argues it (illegal drug use) isn’t that drugs are bad (after all it is your body you can do what you want with it) just as alcohol isn’t bad and few are addicts, he says that instead the difference is that alcohol’s ceremony (going to a pub, having a party with music, etc is ok) but marijuna’s isn’t (passing a joint around with different music). He extends this with religious ceremonies that use alcohol (it is ok there) and other ceremonies such as eucharist (that ceremony is ok but why not marijuna or heroin). BTW he says the real presence isn’t real because it is chemically still bread and wine and so it is bread and wine.
Click to expand...
As I said, muddled thinking is indicative of past drug use. If you want to do drugs, go ahead, and invite this professor to join you. You will probably get a better grade in his class.

By the way, we as Catholic Christians believe that our bodies are NOT our own to do with as we wish - we believe that we are given life in order to become as close to Christ as we can, and that God gave us our very lives so we should honor Him in our whole lives.

Funny how someone can approve of chemical reactions in the brain that can IMITATE the mystery of a sacrament…Yet not understand the sacrament.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
As I said, muddled thinking is indicative of past drug use. If you want to do drugs, go ahead, and invite this professor to join you. You will probably get a better grade in his class.
Click to expand...
:banghead:

Wow.

Well, that’s one way to address the OP’s question…
 
TheRealJuliane said:
As I said, muddled thinking is indicative of past drug use. If you want to do drugs, go ahead, and invite this professor to join you. You will probably get a better grade in his class.
Click to expand...
Where did I imply that I or he used drugs?
By the way, we as Catholic Christians believe that our bodies are NOT our own to do with as we wish - we believe that we are given life in order to become as close to Christ as we can, and that God gave us our very lives so we should honor Him in our whole lives.
Click to expand...
Yes I am know that however using that required the foundation of a the whole Catholic theology, it is much shorter to defend it from another position the reason I posted it here was because of the connection and comparison of the Eucharist and drugs and their ceremony that the author uses
Funny how someone can approve of chemical reactions in the brain that can IMITATE the mystery of a sacrament…Yet not understand the sacrament.
Click to expand...
What?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top