Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Cigarette Smoking Christians

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
j:

...and TR Roosevelt fell out with his successor Taft, because he feared that Taft was too soft on the big corporations.

I don't know whether TR or Taft smoked, though, and really I don't care to find out, even.

Which is precisely the point that some Christians make mountains out of molehills and vice-versa.

tr smoked. look at some of the old reels.
 
tr smoked. look at some of the old reels.

as much as you are anti-smoking, you should also be advised that tats can affect what is in your blood for six months. i wonder if any long term affect has been noted as the fda wont let you donate till after six months. seems to be that ink bleeds into the blood stream. it has to have some effect.
 
as much as you are anti-smoking, you should also be advised that tats can affect what is in your blood for six months. i wonder if any long term affect has been noted as the fda wont let you donate till after six months. seems to be that ink bleeds into the blood stream. it has to have some effect.

j:

Thanks for your comment; this is the thread about smoking. Do feel free to comment about tattoos on a tattoo thread, as well.
 
j:

Thanks for your comment; this is the thread about smoking. Do feel free to comment about tattoos on a tattoo thread, as well.

i throught that out there as most dont know that. only those that donate blood( i cant , permanetly banned).
 
Hmmmmm . . . Perhaps today I have too much time on my hands or that I like being amused, whatever the case may be . . . Here we go round the mulberry bush.


Untrue - at least in respect to the argument I have repeatedly made about how smoking works against the kingdom of God programme of healing and restoring this present physical world.

Prove me wrong - show me one post where this argument has been engaged. There are two hundred and seventy-five posts in this thread - show me just one where someone has argued against the position that God is trying to heal this present world physically (which, of course, makes smoking sin since it clearly works against that program).


First. It may be age - forgive me but I wasn’t aware the crux of this thread was to debate YOUR point of an Edenic state.

Nevertheless. If it was, (and - in context with your ‘smoking working against the program’ correlation), I believe your point was addressed numerous times. (As your line of reasoning could be equally applied to food, exhaust, exercise, gram intake, etc.)

BTW, I notice lately we’ve dropped the clearly in “smoking cigarettes being CLEARLY a sin!†Perhaps we’re making progress.


And by the way, I have indeed engaged the basic argument you re-posted.


Have you really? From what I recall your engaging was to distort what I said about ‘personal’ revelation with ‘isolated’ revelation. (#112). Hmmm, come to think about it, you never did address my reply on that. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t recall anywhere in this 270+ replies where you addressed taking into account one having a personal relationship with Christ aside from generalities.

Neither did you address my question (#139), “Perhaps you conclude one can be guilty (and stand before God) of sin without having any knowledge that he/she was in error.


Why are you not willing to engage my arguments?

I think I know the reason.


No need to think you know, you can know for sure. Why should I? If you cannot play by your rules of engagement (evidence here, inferences there) and follow the same line of reasoning in which I respond, our dialog will only become unfruitful.


What, exactly, is wrong with advocating for a particular position? Sure, I am a little different from many here in this thread - I don't lie, or attack posters personally. But even though that makes me a bit unusual, what, exactly is wrong with the way I am arguing for the position I believe to be true?


What’s wrong? Absolutely nothing at all! And (believe it or not), I appreciate differences. But what troubles me is when, what’s good for the goose is NOT also good for the gander. Unproductive!


Be blessed, Stay Blessed!
 
First. It may be age - forgive me but I wasn’t aware the crux of this thread was to debate YOUR point of an Edenic state.
Look - this is simply unfair debate protocol. You surely must know that my basic argument is that God is indeed seeking to heal the world, including our bodies, in advance of a final consummation. So when you suggest that "my point about an Edenic state" is more or less irrelevant, you are illicitly trying to sweep my basic argument off the table.

No doubt you are motivated to so, since the argument, if correct, makes it trivially obvious that smoking is sin. So, like others, you simply do not want to engage the argument since I suggest you know it is sound.

Nevertheless. If it was, (and - in context with your ‘smoking working against the program’ correlation), I believe your point was addressed numerous times. (As your line of reasoning could be equally applied to food, exhaust, exercise, gram intake, etc.)
Why are you not answering my question, Bonairos? Did I ask you to "claim" that my argument has been engaged? No. This is what I asked:

Drew said:
Prove me wrong - show me one post where this argument has been engaged. There are two hundred and seventy-five posts in this thread - show me just one where someone has argued against the position that God is trying to heal this present world physically (which, of course, makes smoking sin since it clearly works against that program).
Now, please, answer the question - identify the posts, as requested.

Now as to "food" - my line of reasoning, of course, cannot be applied to food. If food had no positive value, and only caused harm, then, yes, I would say eating food is sin. Cigarrettes only cause harm - they do nothing positive.

Same with exercise - it certainly does "good", so my line of reasoning cannot, of course, be applied to suggest that exercise is sin.

As for "exhaust", I assume you are referring to car exhaust. Well, unlike cigarrettes, one can at least make an argument that cars are "good". So, again, you are incorrect in presuming my line of reasoning could be used in respect to cars. Cars clearly do some things that are good. Cigarrettes have no upside at all. And, if you, or someone, can make a case that, on balance, the downside of car use outweight the benefits, I might well suggest that its sin.

I have no idea what you mean by gram intake.

In any event, I am so convinced that the following argument is Biblically correct, and I am so convinced that you are not serious in your debating, I will publically guarantee that you will simply dance around serious engagement of the following:

1. The kingdom of God has already been initiated;

2. We, the church are to be agents working to implement that kingdom;

3. One goal of the Kingdom of God is that human beings experience physical healing - yes, we all die, that not's the point - we are to follow Jesus' healing model all the same. The kingdom is growing, but will only be perfected in the future so the argument "we all die so how can God be trying to heal the world be true" fails;

4. Smoking only harms the body (it does other bad things like cost $$, but we'll let that pass);

5. Therefore, smoking is in direct opposition to the kingdom imperative to heal.

6. Therefore, smoking is sin.

I do not know why I bother - you, and all the others will ignore this, knowing its a valid argument whose conclusion is not at all to your liking.
 
It's easy enough to Google "Health Benefits of Smoking" if anybody wants.
Here's the short list:

  • alleviate symptoms of mental illnesses, including anxiety and schizophrenia
  • provides relief of common side effects from antipsychotic drugs
  • "Cigarette smokers are 50% less likely to have PD or AD than are age- and gender-matched nonsmokers [...] cigarette smoking exerts an undefined, biologic, neuroprotective influence against the development of PD and AD."
    --Quoting Doctor Laura Fratiglioni of Huddinge University Hospital in Sweden states where "PD" means Parkinson's Disease and "AD" means Alzheimer's Disease.
  • The University of Melbourne confirmed the claims made by many smokers that tobacco itself is a strong appetite suppressant
  • Cigarette smoking has also been linked to a decrease in risk of certain inflammatory disorders, since nicotine itself appears to be an anti-inflammatory agent.
  • The department of gastroenterology at the University Hospital of Wales conducted a number of studies to confirm the decreased risk in ulcerative colitis (a potentially severe digestive disorder) in individuals who smoke cigarettes.
The article that Im quoting from can be found in Yahoo Associated Content and goes on to say, that at least one recent astonishing study found that tobacco smoke's anti-inflammatory effects may actually provide some benefits to children who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

A study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology revealed that preeclampsia, an extremely common but potentially deadly condition, is significantly less common in expectant mothers who smoke cigarettes than in expectant mothers who do not smoke.

Clearly, nicotine is a drug and as such can be understood to have various effects on the human body, if used. Clearly, nobody is saying that smoking should be encouraged simply because the dire risks incurred substantially outweigh any possible benefit.


DISCLAIMER:
If you believe you have, or are at risk for, a medical condition that can be treated or prevented with tobacco use, do not use this as a reason to begin smoking or to avoid smoking cessation.

SOURCES:

Smoking and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Disease: Review of the Epidimiological Studies. Brain Behav. Res. 2000 Aug;113(1-2):117-20.

Nicotine Use in Schizophrenia: The Self-Medication Hypothesis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. Volume 29, Issue 6. 2005; 1021-1034

Nitric Oxide Mediates Therapeutic Effect of Nicotine in Ulcerative Colitis. Ailment Pharmacol Ther. 2000 Nov;14(11):1429-34.

Urinary Cotinine Concentration Confirms the Reduced Risk of Preeclampsia with Tobacco Exposure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1192-6

Cigarette Smoking Can Dramatically Affect Appetite and Weight Control. News-Medical.net. Monday, 1-Nov-2004.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought I'd include another tid-bit that was just googled - that there is a Vaccination available against nicotine addiction. If you or your child make it to 20 without smoking (even once) the odds are you won't smoke (ever).

Here is the link:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030521092701.htm

add the http and the 'www' to it and it brings you to article: "New Type Of Vaccine Against Nicotine Addiction Developed By TSRI Scientists" found in ScienceDaily (May 21, 2003) online.

Kansas State University. "Cigarettes' Power May Not Be In Nicotine Itself, New Study Suggests."

ScienceDaily 4 September 2008. Retrieved: 4 March 2011
 
23, 24, 38, 39, 43, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 112, 113, 115, 124, 125, 129, 131, 132, 134, 149, 150, 151, 156, 157, 160, 161, 167, 168, 174, 176, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 199, 202, 204, 214, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 226, 231, 232, 233, 235, 238, 240, 241, 243, 244, 247, 248, 251, 252, 256, 259, 260, 267, 270, 271, 275, 288


Drew -

First off, you are to be commended. You cause me to drop on my knees (I trust you’ll do the same).

Again, you have not only avoided stating ‘by what guidelines we are to dialog by’ (evidence for evidence?, inference for inference?), but you have not answered my questions. Yet, you demand (almost taunting me) to enter into a debate with you. And if I don’t jump to point 3 WITHOUT establishing point 1, I am accused of being evasive.

I have concluded that this has long been about you expressing your views to enlighten others. Nor is this about agreeing to disagree. No my friend, in my opinion this has become about you wanting your opinion imposed on the readers (at any cost) and arguing with those who oppose them. For if it was not, surely we would not be where we are at.

Those numbers I have at the beginning of this reply are your post numbers in this thread. Nothing wrong with frequently posting. But if this was just about sharing your opinion and letting the reader’s decide which holds true for them, I’m sure it would not take 80 posts (out of 288/your last post I’m aware of) to do so. No my friend, this has become a matter of, “I’m right and you are wrong!â€

A Pharisee type attitude?

And no where in these postings is there one apology for giving a wrong impression of how you and your postings are being perceived. No rather, when the question arises, you resort to, “Give me facts! Show me where! I want evidence!â€

Surely, if I was being misunderstood (and accused of having the attitude of a Pharisee at that!), I would stop and be quick to apologize saying, “Evidence or not, I am sorry if I expresses myself to you that way, that is NOT what I meant.â€


My hope would be to dialog where what I have to say can be received (not necessarily agreed with, but received). It’s not just what’s given, but it is also what is received. That is IF, and I say IF, my intent is to maintain Christian harmony (non-Christians read this thread as well).

A Pharisee type attitude?


So, like others, you simply do not want to engage the argument since I suggest you know it is sound.


A Pharisee type attitude?


I am so convinced that you are not serious in your debating, I will publically guarantee that you will simply dance around serious engagement of the following:


A Pharisee type attitude?


I do not know why I bother - you, and all the others will ignore this, knowing its a valid argument whose conclusion is not at all to your liking.


A Pharisee type attitude?


I believe there have been more than two or three witnesses in this thread who ask that you reconsider the manner in which you express your views.

I don’t know you Drew except by what and how you’ve posted here. Nonetheless, I love you and thank you for reminding me of my need of Jesus. I pray somehow, someway, I can do the same for you.


Be blessed, Stay blessed.
 
Cigarettes kill people, anyone who smokes them for extended amounts of time have health problems....

If you smoke them you are slowly killing yourself, by default....

I know eating fast food...blah blah blah

Fast food isn't as bad as cigarettes

Shall we sin that grace may abound?

Certainly not....

-----------------

Why smoke cigarettes to feel good?

Weed is healthier by far

furthermore there are better and free alternatives to both

IT IS A SIN!
 
I stated:

“It is now an individual matter between the Lord and I. Though it may not be written as ‘sin’ in His word, it is now written in my heart that it is.â€

Perhaps you conclude one can be guilty (and stand before God) of sin without having any knowledge that he/she was in error.
It appears that you are effectively arguing that if something like smoking were truly, you would know in your heart that it is sin. And by implication, you appear to not have had that "heart knowledge" that smoking is sin.

Unlike others here, who presume to know what is going on in my heart (and based on that mysterious skill conclude that I am a hypocrite), I have no idea what is "in your heart".

All I can point to is the word of God. And as per many of my posts, I think it is demonstrably Biblical that smoking is sin. So if, repeat if, you are telling me that you have had no "revelation" that smoking is sin, I would still say that the Biblical arguments are the final authority.

I stated:

“I also believe there are several means in which the revelation of God (to include His plan, purpose, and will) may come to an individual (i.e. the bible, intimate prayer, others, and creation itself to name a few). Nonetheless, it becomes a personal revelation, a personal knowledge. And never will any such ‘revelation’ go against who He has revealed Himself to be as declared in His written word.â€

I agree, but surely you are not of the mind that there has to be a "thou shalt not smoke" command in order to conclude that it is Biblical that smoking is a sin. There are many activities that we otherwise can Biblically conclude that are sin, without there being a "one-liner" prohibiting those activities.

I stated:

“I think it would be fair to say that we all agree that it is unhealthy, but clearly a sin?â€
Obviously smoking could be both unhealthy and sinful - so one cannot sensibly arguably that once one has placed smoking in the "unhealthy" category we cannot, for that reason, exclude it from the "sin" category.
 
Bon you gave it a great try. Your post was well written and easy for this simple mind to grasp..... You care Blessing to you!
 
I tend to somewhat agree, how can I not? I am a new creation in Christ Jesus.

HOWEVER, this body? This earthly tent to be restored just as in the Garden of Eden? I am not saying, and never have said that we shouldn’t take care of ourselves physically.

But the fact remains, we may prolong death, even tame its’ sting; but death to this physical body will come and one day, we (those who are in Him) will be clothed incorruptible.
I see no argument here. Yes, we all decay and die no matter how healthily we live. And yes, we will get a resurrection body. But that is hardly an argument that we should therefore abuse our present bodies by smoking. The Biblical facts stand: Jesus modeled healing, setting an example for us, the church. Do you deny that Jesus wants the church to engage in acts of healing? If you do, then how do you justify smoking - it is the textbook definition of an activity that works against healing.

The Kingdom of God is not only about the future, it is here now, and we are called to enact its principles in the here and now.

There are other arguments as well. Do you deny that God loves His creation, even though it is fallen? If you agree, then, on what basis exactly, do you conclude that it is not sin to damage that beloved creation by smoking?
 
23, 24, 38, 39, 43, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 81, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 112, 113, 115, 124, 125, 129, 131, 132, 134, 149, 150, 151, 156, 157, 160, 161, 167, 168, 174, 176, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 199, 202, 204, 214, 216, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 226, 231, 232, 233, 235, 238, 240, 241, 243, 244, 247, 248, 251, 252, 256, 259, 260, 267, 270, 271, 275, 288
You are clearly a troll - these are all my own posts. This is clearly your way of saying that I am a fool.

I asked you for a list of posts where someone "has argued against the position that God is trying to heal this present world physically (which, of course, makes smoking sin since it clearly works against that program)."

And you respond, of course, by yet again evading, by simply listing my post numbers.

You are now on ignore and I will only engage the non-liars and those who want to be serious - a very small crowd indeed.
 
This thread has been a veritable clinic in evasion and lying.

I put forward a clear Biblical argument about the Biblical status of smoking vis a vis its sinfulness.

Does anyone actually challenge the argument on its own terms? No, they do not - there has not been a single post that engages the content of the argument.

Instead people, and I mean quite a few, simply lie. In my books anyway, when you accuse a person of being a hypocrite, with no evidence to support that claim, and when you know you have no evidence, guess what, you are lying.

Now since it would be a real surprise to expect someone to actually seriously deal with the arguments, and lay off the lying and character assassination, I am happy to let the moderators consign this thread to the dustbin.

However, if anyone wants to address the issue in BIblical terms, I am happy to do so. My Biblical argument was set out in point form in a recent post. By all means, tell me where it is mistaken if you can.
 
Back
Top