Why would God create/allow psychedelic plants to exist if he

mind if I copy paste this to /pol/?

>God made the world and everything in it.
Keep thinking that.

>>18526005
From a religious point of view, he supposedly did.

>>18525997
Go ahead my dude.

>>18525991
Your first mistake is including a god in your worldview but since you already did it I'd like to add that the idea of an "all powerful" god is quite modern actually, most cultures don't have a single all powerful god even if there is a "king of gods" like Zeus or it just happens to become more popular than the alternatives, like Quetzalcoatl.

Why not just accept that the idea of a god is obsolete? Just don't be an asshole towards other people and the time you'd spend in church instead use it on something more useful like exploring the effects of the plants you speak about.

>>18526022
>>Why not just accept that the idea of a god is obsolete? Just don't be an asshole towards other people and the time you'd spend in church instead use it

Never been to church in my entire life m8.

>>18526067
Then why are you still believing in a god? Moreso why are you trying to apply logic to this god? Do you really expect there to be an answer along the lines of "god decided to create X but with Y drawback because Z"?

>>18526072
My question was for religious anons actually, guess I should have stated that I myself, am not religious.

>>18525991
Why would God create the Tree of Knowledge if he didn't want creatures to eat from it?

I'm not religious, and don't give a shit what you do, but your logic is faulty.

>>18526100
Because he loves to test and punish people.

>>18526105
Ok. There's the answer to the OP.

Is your question about God or about law? Because this premise that drugs are amoral is only based on the fact that they are illegal. The laws of men were written by men, and men want productivity and progress and economic prosperity. What use are men who are busy getting high? They contribute little. That is why most governing agents forbid them. This is hardly a matter of divinity.

>>18525991
Cause god isn't real and all those rules were written by people who pretended they were from god to scare people into obeying them.

How could a good God not predict the result evil in his creations?

How could an all-knowing God not know that the snake will tempt his creations?

How could an al-knowing god create a being able to be tempted by evil?

How could a kind god punish his own creation who was decided by another of his creations?

The whole god thing has a lot deeper holes that psychedelic plants. Everything on this earth is apparently good. So it stands that drug plants are good.

>>18525991
religious people accept the hypocrisy in religion because religion tells them to. this is inherent to religious belief.

Religions tend to preach a life of productive stability over any kind of thrills. To me, the question why so many religions have a hostile attitude towards sex is still more fundamental than drugs. Many drugs are addictive and can cause people to lose sight of things deemed important by the religion.

I also doubt that even within religion, anyone would claim that everything in the world was made for man's benefit. There's a shitload of toxic plants as well, for example, that were certainly not intended for people to eat.

Having said that
>don't give me this "work of the devil" shit
I think you have a skewed idea of what kind of people come here.

>>18525991
>Did not God give all the plants/animals for mans benefit?

Not according to everyone that's been mauled by a bear. Or a lion. Or eaten by wolves. Or bitten by a venomous snake. Or eaten poisoned berries. Or stung to death by bees.

>>18525991
>Why would God create/allow x to exist if he found y to be immoral/a sin?
Because free will has no meaning if all choices to be made are right ones.

>why do modern religions/governments have such a hatred for these purely natural things?
It's not purely natural things that they hate. It's things that wrestle influence over the people with them (addictives, mind openers, etc).
They want to stay in control.

I'm going to preempt a followup question:
>inb4: does this mean religions/governments are evil/want to control us?
No, that's plain silly.
Religions/governments only control those people whom are willing to be controlled; those who have no better idea, so they have somewhere to turn to if they are unsure themselves.
For obvious reasons, what's good for mass-information may not be best for *you* in particular. What they are preaching is baseline "if you don't know any better - do as we say".
If you *do* know better, then follow your own wisdom.

Do you know better? That's another question entirely.

>tl;dr: religions/governments ideas of right and wrong are guidelines; sure, they can enforce it, but it's not like you're doing anything illegal, right?

>>18525991
Because it's basically a bunch of laws woven into a bunch of fairy tales.
Tip, tip, tip.