Cigarette Smoking Christians

[Drew]

Interestingly the lung cancer rate is 10 times higher in North America than Japan despite Japan having a MUCH higher smoking rate than North America.

I have my doubts about this factor of 10 - can you provide some reference to back up this assertion. In a 5 minute web search, all I could find was that Japanese did have lower rates of lung cancer, even though they smoked more. This I do not doubt, but where did you get this figure of "10 times" from, please.

So smoking does not necessarily lead one to an early death.

I don't think anyone is saying that smoking always leads to early death. But the facts are clear - it does, on average, shorten life from what it would otherwise be in any given cultural setting.

It is also true that being on a crashing airliner does not necessarily result in death. But that is hardly a reason to claim that its "safe" to be on a crashing airliner.

Japanese smokers tend to outlive North American nonsmokers.

Again, this may be true, but its not really any kind of argument for the "safety" of smoking. The real question, of course, is this: how long do Japanese smokers live compared to Japanese non-smokers.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Studies showed it may be because of all the green tea Japanese drink which somehow washes out the lungs.

Drew asked good questions, but it was this statement that bugged me.
How does drinking ANYTHING "wash out" or cleanse or purify the lungs? :


As for smoking shortening your life, I believe that it does - but there can be NO QUESTION that smoking ruins your later years. Again, I have watched this happen to people.

I think of the elderly that are life-long NON-smokers and I compare their later years to the smokers. There is no comparison. Sure, we can all get sick, but why do something that guarantees great challenges late in life?


Think about it...
There two to major challenges to the aging person:

1) Having enough money to survive after retirement.
2) Staying healthy (which, of course, complicates number 1 above).

WHY do something that you KNOW will hurt you in both of these areas? I KNOW we all think we'll never get old, but we all also KNOW better.

 

[Bonairos]

I would answer "yes" to your question. Any activity which damages the body and is otherwise not beneficial to you or to others would be sin in my view.

Drew -

So would I be correct in saying that, if I would rather choose to (and not indicating if I would or not) light up a cigarette to ‘calm my nerves’ (be it psychological or physical) in place of/restrain myself from, going off on someone or something in a heated moment, I would then be choosing one sin over another? For lack of a better phrase, ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’?

I’m asking for clarity because I’m sure there are others silently monitoring this thread.


Be blessed, Stay blessed!

 

[pjt]

Pizza, I don`t know how green tea washes out the lungs either so that`s why I wrote "somehow" but that was the study`s conclusion. Whether the conclusion is accurate or not, I can not say, but there does have to be some explanation as to why a country with heavy smokers has less lung cancer than a country with a smaller percentage of smokers. Not to mention all the industrial fumes from Japan`s neighbor China make their way over to Japan in addition to the air pollution Japan makes on its own so there are a lot of toxins in the air in very conjested living conditions. So technically the lung cancer rate should be soaring, but it is not.

Drew, I read this study years ago so I can`t give you a reference. The information that I read is just in my mind. Sorry.

Actually I`m not trying to argue that smoking is healthy or that it does not lead to a whole list of various health problems some of which do lead to an early death. I was just trying to point out to Chris that maybe he is being a little too harsh in his attitude towards smokers especially with a comment like this "Smokers suck they knowingly shorten their lives to leave their children without parents when they need them". I think throughout Asia you will find a high percentage of smokers compared to North America and without the stigma. So I think throughout Asia, the average smoker is not thinking they are killing themselves and will leave their child as an orphan. And I don`t even think all Westerners who smoke are thinking they are going to leave their child as an orphan. So I don`t think smokers are quite as selfish, cruel, and unlovable as the picture Chris painted.

I am not advocating smoking but I would like to see people have a little softer heart towards smokers as people. Some smokers would love to quit but they are hooked. Others don`t particularly see any harm in what they are doing. I don`t think the majority are smoking with the intention to harm themselves and others.

 

[Drew]

Drew -

So would I be correct in saying that, if I would rather choose to (and not indicating if I would or not) light up a cigarette to ‘calm my nerves’ (be it psychological or physical) in place of/restrain myself from, going off on someone or something in a heated moment, I would then be choosing one sin over another? For lack of a better phrase, ‘choosing the lesser of two evils’?

I see what you are saying, but I suggest you are creating a somewhat contrived situation. Clearly, if lighting a cigarrette would prevent you from otherwise hitting someone, then by all means light up.

But I suggest that such choices are ultimately not our only options - there are many other, more healthy, ways to deal with anger.

Your reasoning appears to be kind of like this reasoning: The only way that Fred is not going to beat his wife is if he gets drunk. So its "OK" for Fred to get drunk - its the lesser of two sins.

Surely I need not explain the problem with this.

 

[Drew]

.....So I don`t think smokers are quite as selfish, cruel, and unlovable as the picture Chris painted.

I am not advocating smoking but I would like to see people have a little softer heart towards smokers as people. Some smokers would love to quit but they are hooked. Others don`t particularly see any harm in what they are doing. I don`t think the majority are smoking with the intention to harm themselves and others.

Well, I certainly agree that we should not adopt a strongly judgemental position with respect to smokers. I agree - they are hooked and need support and encouragement, not condemnation.

But I doubt any adult does not know that smoking hurts themselves and their families, if not the wider society.

 

[Bonairos]

I see what you are saying, but I suggest you are creating a somewhat contrived situation. Clearly, if lighting a cigarrette would prevent you from otherwise hitting someone, then by all means light up.

But I suggest that such choices are ultimately not our only options - there are many other, more healthy, ways to deal with anger.

Your reasoning appears to be kind of like this reasoning: The only way that Fred is not going to beat his wife is if he gets drunk. So its "OK" for Fred to get drunk - its the lesser of two sins.

Surely I need not explain the problem with this.

Drew -

Contrived? A strong word to reply with when one is only looking for clarity. Having said that, I am compelled to respond only because you emphatically stated (post # 57), “Smoking is clearly a sin.†(emphasis mine)

First, no where did I state ‘going off’ to be solely defined as physical violence (i.e. hitting, beating, etc.) yet it could include that. Perhaps it is myself alone who is guilty of saying something, doing something that contradicts the life and spirit (attitude) of Christ.

Second, if smoking is clearly a sin (in your opinion), would it be fair to say you condone a practice of sin by saying, “by all means light up†regardless of the situation at hand? Regardless of other options available?

Thirdly, forgive the appearance of my reasoning. I in no way attempted to bring in another subject (getting drunk) when directly addressing you. I read your post (same one, #57), “The issue here is smoking, not soda pop or pizza†(I assumed getting drunk was included) and attempted to address you along your guidelines.

Finally, I mean no disrespect. I’m just asking for clarity on your perspective. And this only because of your statement, “Smoking is clearly a sin.†I am fully aware that there are silent readers who might also ponder your reasoning for making such a strongly marked statement.

And NO! It is not OK for 'Fred' to get drunk in order that he not beat his wife. Both, getting drunk and beating his wife are separate matters (clear sins) discussed in the bible; made even worse when combined. And yes, you need not explain the problem with that!

If appropriate, I would rather advise ‘Fred’ take a cue from PizzaGuy (post #68), “Eat a pizza and enjoy a cigar!†lol

Be blessed, Stay blessed!

 

[Mike]

I believe it's easy for people who don't do X to be critical of X while they dismiss the Y in their lives, and smoking is an easy target. Often times this seems to be an unconscious response, so I'm not telling anyone to take the plank out of their eye.

We shouldn't look down on people who smoke, whether it's a casual cigarette (not sin, IMO) or a vice that they are unwilling to release to the Lord (sin, IMO).

It's been my observation that some of the vices that our culture has (in the U.S.) are more problematic in lower income urban areas. This isn't exclusive to them, but I would suspect there is a linear association. I used to have a job that took me into the city of Detroit. When I would fill up the tank with gas and had to go in the building because THE RECEIPT DISPENSER DIDN'T WORK :bigfrown, there were often people standing at the counter buying cigarettes or purchasing Lotto tickets by the $20's or $50's. Where I live in the suburbs, I find that this is exception. We have casinos in Detroit (more :bigfrown). I've been inside them exactly once. We'd parked by one and were walking through it to get to a Red Wings game. What I observed was sad: people who "appeared" to have few dimes to rub together hunched over slot machines or fixed at a table they seemed to have been at for a while (more ). My assumption was that these people didn't have a slush fund of money to play with.

My speculation is that people who don't have fulfillment in their lives overall, seek the instant gratification that comes with cigarette smoking. It's their "escape" that they pay for one pack at a time. Again, I'm not saying cigarette smoking is exclusive to lower economic dwellers. There are plenty of people in upper regions who do. Yes, smoking is horrible for one's health. I maintain that, while it can be a sin, it isn't necessarily one. And we shouldn't disdain people who smoke. We should pray for, and encourage, them.

 

[Drew]

Contrived? A strong word to reply with when one is only looking for clarity.

I meant no disrespect, I could not think of a better word. You pose what is essentially a false "either-or" since there are clearly other (better) alternatives than smoking to prevent lashing out.

Having said that, I am compelled to respond only because you emphatically stated (post # 57), “Smoking is clearly a sin.†(emphasis mine)

Well, I substantially stand by that statement. As should be clear, the "lesser of two sins" argument is a false problem, at least in respect to smoking.

Second, if smoking is clearly a sin (in your opinion), would it be fair to say you condone a practice of sin by saying, “by all means light up†regardless of the situation at hand? Regardless of other options available?

What I thought I said was that if smoking were the only practical alternative to "going off", then perhaps you should smoke. But I repeat - I strongly suspect this is a false "either-or" scenario.

Finally, I mean no disrespect. I’m just asking for clarity on your perspective. And this only because of your statement, “Smoking is clearly a sin.†I am fully aware that there are silent readers who might also ponder your reasoning for making such a strongly marked statement.

I stand by the statement, unless and until someone can tell me a scenario where smoking truly is "justifiable".

And NO! It is not OK for 'Fred' to get drunk in order that he not beat his wife. Both, getting drunk and beating his wife are separate matters (clear sins) discussed in the bible; made even worse when combined. And yes, you need not explain the problem with that!

Some people have argued that if activity "X" is not explicitly identified as sin in the Bible, then its not sin. Well, that is not very good reasoning. Insider trading is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible, but it is still clearly sin.

If appropriate, I would rather advise ‘Fred’ take a cue from PizzaGuy (post #68), “Eat a pizza and enjoy a cigar!†lol

Be blessed, Stay blessed!

Smoking is not the same as eating pizza. Cigarrettes are addictive, pizza is not, at least nearly to the same extent. We should do everything we can to rid our society of the scourge of cigarrettes.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I believe it's easy for people who don't do X to be critical of X while they dismiss the Y in their lives, and smoking is an easy target.

Added to that, we say that homosexuals are going to hell 'cause they knowingly continue in their sin.

So, cigarette smokers are ALSO going to hell because THEY are knowingly continuing in their sin.

MAN, sure am glad I'm not a homo or smoker!

 

[Drew]

Yes, smoking is horrible for one's health. I maintain that, while it can be a sin, it isn't necessarily one.

Well, by all means, please defend this assertion. I think that would be challenging since the following "facts" are arrayed against you.

1. God loves the world and He created your body and mine;

2. To wilfully damage your body, when you do not need to, is to damage God's good creation;

3. The body is described as the temple of the Holy Spirit, so how can damaging it needlessly not be sin?

4. Smoking tends to be addictive - yes there may be the occasional person who smokes one cigarrette a week, but they are clearly the exception.

5. Smoking not only ruins individual lives, it incurs many millions of health care cost which otherwise would not be needed.

How, then, can smoking not be sinful?

Again, please bear in mind that in naming something as sin, I should not be read as unsympathetic to smokers. I realize its an addiction. So is promiscuous sex for some. But the existence of a "hard to resist" compulsion does not move something out of the "sin" category.

 

[Bonairos]

Drew -

I now find myself engaged in this thread with you. (“Lord, Is this yet another fine mess I got myself into?!†HAHA!)

But first, to be effective in my replies, I ask you please state your definition of sin.

I ask not to avoid your last post (for I intend to respond), but rather to relate my beliefs (and yes it will be the first time in this thread I state my convictions) - relate my beliefs to your definition in hopes of a having a productive dialog.

If you would rather choose, I will be glad to respond without first having your definition. However, the possibility increases that we might be on (unnecessarily) different pages and run rabbit trails.

Nonetheless, I look forward to our discussion.


Be blessed, Stay blessed.

 

[Drew]

Drew -

I now find myself engaged in this thread with you. (“Lord, Is this yet another fine mess I got myself into?!†HAHA!)

But first, to be effective in my replies, I ask you please state your definition of sin.

I do not actually have an explicit "definition" of sin. Definitions can be a cop-out - a way of over-simplifying something.

But I will take a shot: Jesus initiated the Kingdom of God 2000 years, and articulated its fundamental principles in teachings such as the sermon on the mount. The kingdom of God is about healing, redeeming, and restoring all of created reality to its "Edenic" state, or something similar. Any activity that works against that unfolding project would, in my view, constitute "sin".

Since the human body is part of God's good created order, and since God seeks to redeem all of his creation (see Romans 8), it seems pretty straightforward that to take unnececessary actions that damage the body is to commit "sin".

Although you have not expressed such a position, there are some who see the "physical" as being not really that important and wonder why people like me make such a big deal over things like gluttony, environmental damage, and smoking. Well, it is simply not Biblical to divide the world up into the "lesser physical stuff" and the "more important spiritual stuff".

 

[Chris]

Wow, that`s pretty harsh feelings Chris. I can`t feel that way towards smokers. I don`t think you`d ever make it as a missionary in Asia with an attitude like that. There are too many smokers here for you to despise. Interestingly the lung cancer rate is 10 times higher in North America than Japan despite Japan having a MUCH higher smoking rate than North America. Studies showed it may be because of all the green tea Japanese drink which somehow washes out the lungs. Smoking and drinking is everywhere in Japan but the Japanese live longer than most people in the world. So smoking does not necessarily lead one to an early death. Japanese smokers tend to outlive North American nonsmokers. I`ll say that in their defense even though I still would not encourage people to smoke.

Actually there is one form of tobacco that I think smells wonderful and it`s a pipe. I`m a woman so of course I`d never smoke it and don`t feel it matches women at all, but I do love its smell when someone else smokes it. A cigarette or a cigar is a nasty, choking smell to me, but a pipe is very pleasant.

It is every bit the same as someone pulling up beside you distributing asbestos dust all over you. They both do the same thing-carcinogens. Its something I don't want but involuntarily get be those who smoke next to me.

 

[jasoncran]

Added to that, we say that homosexuals are going to hell 'cause they knowingly continue in their sin.

So, cigarette smokers are ALSO going to hell because THEY are knowingly continuing in their sin.

MAN, sure am glad I'm not a homo or smoker!

homosexual please use that word.

the lbgt find that offensive if you dont.

 

[Bonairos]

I do not actually have an explicit "definition" of sin. Definitions can be a cop-out - a way of over-simplifying something.

Drew -

I’m not sure of your logic, “Definitions can be a cop-out, a way of oversimplifying something?†(emphasis mine) I think being vague and not defining the manner in which one uses words could be classified as more of a cop-out than in doing so. But then, that’s just me.

Yet to some degree, I can somewhat relate to your shot at it,

The kingdom of God is about healing, redeeming, and restoring all of created reality to its "Edenic" state, or something similar. Any activity that works against that unfolding project would, in my view, constitute "sin".

For the sake dialog I will agree to that with one addition, “any activity that (an individual) works against that unfolding project. . . “

Having said that, here is my (limited knowledge) definition of sin that I go by: “Any action (or lack of) that a person takes which is in direct contrast to what God has revealed to him or her.â€

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.

I surmise the thread has become, “Is Smoking Cigarettes A Sin?†A lot of opinions have been shared along with the reasons for it. I think it would be fair to say that we all agree that it is unhealthy, but clearly a sin?

If it were possible for our physical (decaying, earthly) bodies to be restored to its’ “Edenic state, or something similar†(and by ‘Edenic’ I assume you mean as in the Garden of Eden) then I could see myself on board with you (based on your definition of sin). Yet we know that is not possible; hence a new body we look forward to.

Because ‘smoking’ is not specifically mentioned in the bible (like murder, theft, immorality, etc.), yet references to ‘health’ are (and those references in no way refer back to an Edenic state), we are challenged with the question, “Is smoking cigarettes a sin?†. . . an action we take that directly contrasts the personal revelation we have of God for our lives (my definition).

With that said my stance is this. For some it is, for some it’s not. And that depending on what the Lord has personally spoken to that individual. It’s like women using lipstick. Some in the church are adamantly against it. And that’s okay, I have no problem with them or it. In fact, it can further enhance my wife’s beauty.

However, if at some point the Lord speaks directly to me (for whatever reason, who can argue against God?) that lipstick is an unholy item in my life and for me to steer clear of it - and with that revelation I hang out at the cosmetic counter, it has then becomes a sin for me. 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.

In turn, I cannot emphatically state what the Lord (by design) has for me, MUST also be the same for everyone else as well. A personal revelation within a personal relationship. I may attempt to share this knowledge with others, but to restrain others because of my own restraints would also become a sin for me.

So to agree that smoking cigarettes is clearly a sin for every Christian is something I cannot do. I can accept that perhaps it has become one for you. But me? I haven’t received that revelation; and even if I did, I don’t think I could put that strong a personal conviction on someone else. Especially when not addressed in written His word.


Be blessed, Stay blessed!

 

[jasoncran]

Drew -

I’m not sure of your logic, “Definitions can be a cop-out, a way of oversimplifying something?†(emphasis mine) I think being vague and not defining the manner in which one uses words could be classified as more of a cop-out than in doing so. But then, that’s just me.

Yet to some degree, I can somewhat relate to your shot at it,



For the sake dialog I will agree to that with one addition, “any activity that (an individual) works against that unfolding project. . . “

Having said that, here is my (limited knowledge) definition of sin that I go by: “Any action (or lack of) that a person takes which is in direct contrast to what God has revealed to him or her.â€

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.

I surmise the thread has become, “Is Smoking Cigarettes A Sin?†A lot of opinions have been shared along with the reasons for it. I think it would be fair to say that we all agree that it is unhealthy, but clearly a sin?

If it were possible for our physical (decaying, earthly) bodies to be restored to its’ “Edenic state, or something similar†(and by ‘Edenic’ I assume you mean as in the Garden of Eden) then I could see myself on board with you (based on your definition of sin). Yet we know that is not possible; hence a new body we look forward to.

Because ‘smoking’ is not specifically mentioned in the bible (like murder, theft, immorality, etc.), yet references to ‘health’ are (and those references in no way refer back to an Edenic state), we are challenged with the question, “Is smoking cigarettes a sin?†. . . an action we take that directly contrasts the personal revelation we have of God for our lives (my definition).

With that said my stance is this. For some it is, for some it’s not. And that depending on what the Lord has personally spoken to that individual. It’s like women using lipstick. Some in the church are adamantly against it. And that’s okay, I have no problem with them or it. In fact, it can further enhance my wife’s beauty.

However, if at some point the Lord speaks directly to me (for whatever reason, who can argue against God?) that lipstick is an unholy item in my life and for me to steer clear of it - and with that revelation I hang out at the cosmetic counter, it has then becomes a sin for me. 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.

In turn, I cannot emphatically state what the Lord (by design) has for me, MUST also be the same for everyone else as well. A personal revelation within a personal relationship. I may attempt to share this knowledge with others, but to restrain others because of my own restraints would also become a sin for me.

So to agree that smoking cigarettes is clearly a sin for every Christian is something I cannot do. I can accept that perhaps it has become one for you. But me? I haven’t received that revelation; and even if I did, I don’t think I could put that strong a personal conviction on someone else. Especially when not addressed in written His word.


Be blessed, Stay blessed!

contra thought.

i dont watch tv per its supporting of sin therefore all christians musnt watch tv as its sinful.

 

[pjt]

It is every bit the same as someone pulling up beside you distributing asbestos dust all over you. They both do the same thing-carcinogens. Its something I don't want but involuntarily get be those who smoke next to me.

But you can step away from the smoker. You can ask them not to smoke in your home. You can choose not to go in their homes and cars. If someone is smoking in a nonsmoking area, you can politely point out they are in a nonsmoking area. It is possible that out of habit they just pulled out a cigarette without thinking so the act was not a deliberate assault on your rights although it was thoughtless of them. You can choose not to go to restaurants and other places that permit smoking. At the same time, you do have to acknowledge their rights. They have a legal right to smoke.

There are lots of things I dislike or disagree with that I feel are spiritually destructive to an individual, and I would consider spiritually destructive things to be much worse than physically destructive things. However, even though I realize the destructive nature of stuff, I have to realize the legal and spiritual rights people have to make spiritually unhealthy choices. For example, I would consider believing evolution over creationism to be very spiritually unhealthy and destructive and even contributing to spiritual death to reject that God had His hand in creation. And I would find people that spread this lie of evolution to be spiritually lethal, but I don`t despise these people because I know not all of them believe and spread this lie to spiritually harm others. Like smoking there are various reasons why people latch on to this theory, and not all the reasons are harm inducing reasons. But of course, if someone spread it purely for the purpose of harm, then I would find that offensive just as if someone pulled out a cigarette and started smoking just to offend or harm a nonsmoker.

 

[jasoncran]

But you can step away from the smoker. You can ask them not to smoke in your home. You can choose not to go in their homes and cars. If someone is smoking in a nonsmoking area, you can politely point out they are in a nonsmoking area. It is possible that out of habit they just pulled out a cigarette without thinking so the act was not a deliberate assault on your rights although it was thoughtless of them. You can choose not to go to restaurants and other places that permit smoking. At the same time, you do have to acknowledge their rights. They have a legal right to smoke.

There are lots of things I dislike or disagree with that I feel are spiritually destructive to an individual, and I would consider spiritually destructive things to be much worse than physically destructive things. However, even though I realize the destructive nature of stuff, I have to realize the legal and spiritual rights people have to make spiritually unhealthy choices. For example, I would consider believing evolution over creationism to be very spiritually unhealthy and destructive and even contributing to spiritual death to reject that God had His hand in creation. And I would find people that spread this lie of evolution to be spiritually lethal, but I don`t despise these people because I know not all of them believe and spread this lie to spiritually harm others. Like smoking there are various reasons why people latch on to this theory, and not all the reasons are harm inducing reasons. But of course, if someone spread it purely for the purpose of harm, then I would find that offensive just as if someone pulled out a cigarette and started smoking just to offend or harm a nonsmoker.

off topic,and i dont believe in evolution but i am an honest creationist

one shouldnt be so quick to assume that all the christians believe in creationism

one , while,its fuzzy biblically, can believe in evolution and be a christian.

the genesis account is vague.

 

[pjt]

off topic,and i dont believe in evolution but i am an honest creationist

one shouldnt be so quick to assume that all the christians believe in creationism

one , while,its fuzzy biblically, can believe in evolution and be a christian.

the genesis account is vague.

Okay, for the purpose of this thread lets say evolution that removes God from the picture totally I find to be spiritually harmful, but you can substitute anything you think is spiritually harmful. My point is not to take this thread on the topic of evolution. That is a different topic. My point is some things from a Christian`s standpoint are much more lethal than the smoke of a cigarette which we all agree is unhealthy, yet as lethal as spiritually deadly things can be, we don`t have to despise the person who has and spreads spiritually deadly stuff. I live all around atheists who are leading their own children to hell which I would consider much worse than an early physical death, but I love the people. I strongly disagree with their beliefs and the death it is bringing to them and others around them, but I don`t despise them; so here is my main point, if we don`t despise those who are doing the most destructive thing of all --leading people to spiritual death, how can we despise those whom we are just around briefly who very briefly pollute us with smoke and probably not enough smoke to cause us to get cancer? Spiritual pollution is a million times worse than a cigarette, in my opinion.